The labor force in any workplace is faced with a myriad of challenges. The wellbeing of the workers is a major test encountered by employers. Industries have endeavored to provide assistance through welfare systems. Welfare capitalism is a unique approach of free enterprise that appeared in the 20th century. Usually, the interests of the workers were many and they required solutions. Organizations develop channels by which they can be dealt with. Welfare capitalism was started in the 20th century with many organizations adopting the plan. Firms presented increased wages and reparations for their employees. Benefits included homes, medical care, and retirement funds.
The industrial revolution had engulfed America by the start of the 20th century. Employees worked under a pact that compelled them to perform professionally, but it ignored health matters. Therefore, the system was content with competence and not the employee’s wellbeing. The organization’s demands were focused on production results. Workers dreaded losing their occupations and this kept the system going. Most management of organizations used strictness and did not dither to sack workers. Unemployed people as a result of sackings and giving up added to workplace volatility. The results were unemployment which was considered normal.
Parallel challenges were also being faced in Europe. However, there was growth of organizations that dealt with the workers welfare. They helped curb the uncertainties caused in the market. Worker societies, shielding laws, and personal covers aided the European industry. These organizations were much more robust compared to the American bodies. Through the 19th century, America had lagged behind, among the developed countries, in the size of welfare provision. While European workers realized welfare benefits, their American counterparts used their sturdy faith in independence and open endeavors. They used this to respond strongly each time there was an external influence. Commercial activities in America were run using command. The autonomy occasionally caused uprisings and strikes in America (Jacoby, 1997).
Today in America wellbeing plans are used by organizations to cater for the needs of their workers. The idea was formulated and endorsed by industry leaders in the late 19th century. One such administrator was known as Henry Ford. He created avenues in which workers could present their challenges at the workplace. The 19th century was an era of prevalent trade and industry uncertainty, change campaigns, and workforce conflict. The opinion was that workers should be given benefits by their employers. These remunerations were meant to cushion workers from the unpredictability of the trade and industry. Organizations used these schemes to promote employee fidelity, output, and commitment. Welfare is a noble idea that should not be abused.
In America social welfare organizations strive to support those citizens in need. Populations with needs can be several and people require protection from the capitalistic market. In the 20th century period a perfect employment setting was remote in the state of Chicago. Workers even tried to start associations that would address their needs. Administration personnel endeavored to prevent mass action by the employees. This was achieved through welfare capitalism. Measures were undertaken to create structures for dealing with employee challenges. They provided medical support, financial cover, and saving schemes (Cohen, 1990).
Nonetheless, the wellbeing tendering organizations did not reach the expectations of workers. Notably, they held that the idea was to show that industrialists could have morals. It was during the great depression that many workers in Chicago were out of employment. The situation affected many economies of the world and many jobs were lost. At this stage the resources of the little groupings were overstretched. Only one solution was possible, they had to fall back to a union pact with employers as workers. This helped them in many ways including being part of political contributions. Through the welfare groups benefits such as medical care, social assistance, and articulation of issues, among others could be dealt with.
Uniting the workers was a daring task without having one umbrella body. The odds were against the workers. They had to rise above social limitations and cope with company’s which had regime support. Arbitration was the best way to secure social help. The concordat reached was known as the new deal. It united the employee’s into working together to achieve the American way of life (Cohen, 1990). Welfare is certainly a noble idea and it should be embraced. However, if it is managed by a large organization, the benefits will be felt more readily. Support offered at the welfare run by industries is much more sustainable. It cannot be compared to smaller groupings in terms of variety and costs (Cohen, 1990).
Health care is a challenge to many countries of the world. Medical care, generally, is an expensive undertaking. Nations try to have equal opportunities for health care to their citizens, but the budgets are usually overwhelming. A model of communal groupings for sponsoring society wellbeing should be developed. This will help in reducing health care disparities. Majority of the people in any given nation cannot afford proper health care. In America there exist guiding principles that ensure focus on communal involvement. The spotlight is geared towards attaining distinct objectives. The welfare state regime model is one development that can help in achieving the objectives (Hart, 2009).
Welfare state systems can be used as substitute forms of communal innovation. They can be expanded to guard society’s source of revenue from the threat of market free enterprises. With reference to the communal self-governing systems, society health conditions improved in many welfare states over the past years. During policy formulation in the 20th century era, amazing results were realized in wellbeing care (Hart, 2009).
With the unfortunate unraveling of the new deal in the 1960s, welfare capitalism also got affected. During the period, companies were confronted by stiff global rivalry. This came from businesses that had reduced operational costs. European nations that had state run welfare systems ensured lucrative investment environments for companies. Keeping up with nations that had strong welfare systems was a challenge to the American companies. Retirement benefits and wellbeing provisions were some key areas distressed by the increased operational costs. Many other countries had no welfare systems thus could afford low wage costs. Competing in such situations was costly and frustrating.
Earlier, during the formulation of the idea in the 1920s, the push was from the workers’ concerns. However, the drive slowly shifted towards the company’s cutting costs of doing business. This move impacted the wellbeing care provision schemes. With increased domestic and global competition, companies could not sustain the model of the 1920s. This could only mean that wellbeing care was slowly becoming elusive. Wellbeing care cover had progressively been disconnected from employment packages. Current statistics show a steady decrease in percentages of workers under health cover in many companies. This also applies to retirement benefits. The failure or denial by organizations to keep the agreements and assurances made to their employees appear as a recurring trend. The occurrences could be due to inappropriate running operations and costs of organizations. However, it is also an indication of the worrying fall of welfare capitalism.
Majority of free enterprise were consoling the market that this was just a fee for evolution. Due to the modernized contest, welfare capitalism, as was, could not be sustained. Organizations that did not incur the welfare costs were more responsive, hence could be lucrative. When businesses reach a stage of not keeping their end of the bargain, the workers will be forced on to the state administration. Government run welfare corporations such as Pension Guaranty Corp will have to chip in (Gross, 2004).
Judging by what the initiators of welfare capitalism had in mind, the idea was noble. It ensured that the worker could concentrate on their jobs worrying less about their welfare care needs. Evidence of the system’s success can be seen in European and some Asian countries today. Therefore, it is possible to provide wellbeing care to people as it is currently being practiced. Populations of countries such as Japan are gracefully shifting to more elderly people as opposed to the young ones. This can produce a major challenge to the welfare of these citizens. It is obvious that the elderly are unable to work. Nevertheless, these populations have been provided with basic welfare needs. The responsibility has to be met by somebody. Owing to the costs, individuals or small groupings cannot sustain these provisions. A well managed scheme is vital for the care provision.
The working generations are equally faced by the wellbeing care challenges. Although it can be costly for employers to provide the care, governments can be of great support. In well developed welfare systems, the state takes responsibility for the wellbeing of its citizens. Just as the idea started in businesses, it can be adopted at national levels. The working population creates wealth for the nation and the government benefits from the resources. It is only prudent that the population is relieved of the welfare care costs.
In America the health care situation, just as in most parts of the world, is dire. A communal approach to addressing this issue could be sustainable. The larger population cannot afford proper health care resulting to a ‘sick’ nation. An unhealthy workforce cannot work to propel the nation to great heights. People require a settled mind in order to perform well. The government has noble plans to subsidize health care so as to reach those who need it most.
Lastly, with a well crafted welfare system wellbeing goals can be attained. Welfare capitalism is a beneficial undertaking. The challenges of the cost of sustaining it can be cushioned by sharing. The governments of countries can develop organizations to which contributions are made. The resources are then used to provide the wellbeing care to the citizens. In countries where these systems have succeeded, the resources are channeled through a national system. Therefore, welfare capitalism should be encouraged to support the population in general. A population that has less worry about its wellbeing will always be happy.
Reference List
Gross, D. (2004) Goodbye, Pension. Goodbye, Health Insurance. Goodbye, Vacations. Welfare capitalism is dying. We’re going to miss it. Web.
Jacoby, S. (1997) Modern Manors: Welfare Capitalism since the New Deal. Web.
Hart, N. (2009) Health Inequality & Welfare Capitalism. Reducing Health Inequalities What do we know about Successful Strategies? Web.
Cohen, L. (1990) Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939. New York: Cambridge University Press. Web.