What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Loyalty: The Rise and Fall of Good Jobs in America
Having a good, stable job used to be the bedrock of the American Dream. Not anymore.
In this richly detailed and eye-opening book, Rick Wartzman chronicles the erosion of the relationship between American companies and their workers. Through the stories of four major employers -- General Motors, General Electric, Kodak, and Coca-Cola -- he shows how big businesses once took responsibility for providing their workers and retirees with an array of social benefits. At the height of the post-World War II economy, these companies also believed that worker pay needed to be kept high in order to preserve morale and keep the economy humming. Productivity boomed.
But the corporate social contract didn't last. By tracing the ups and downs of these four corporate icons over seventy years, Wartzman illustrates just how much has been lost: job security and steadily rising pay, guaranteed pensions, robust health benefits, and much more. Charting the Golden Age of the '50s and '60s; the turbulent years of the '70s and '80s; and the growth of downsizing, outsourcing, and instability in the modern era, Wartzman's narrative is a biography of the American Dream gone sideways.
Deeply researched and compelling, The End of Loyalty will make you rethink how Americans can begin to resurrect the middle class.
Finalist for the Los Angeles Times book prize in current interestA best business book of the year in economics, Strategy+Business
In this richly detailed and eye-opening book, Rick Wartzman chronicles the erosion of the relationship between American companies and their workers. Through the stories of four major employers -- General Motors, General Electric, Kodak, and Coca-Cola -- he shows how big businesses once took responsibility for providing their workers and retirees with an array of social benefits. At the height of the post-World War II economy, these companies also believed that worker pay needed to be kept high in order to preserve morale and keep the economy humming. Productivity boomed.
But the corporate social contract didn't last. By tracing the ups and downs of these four corporate icons over seventy years, Wartzman illustrates just how much has been lost: job security and steadily rising pay, guaranteed pensions, robust health benefits, and much more. Charting the Golden Age of the '50s and '60s; the turbulent years of the '70s and '80s; and the growth of downsizing, outsourcing, and instability in the modern era, Wartzman's narrative is a biography of the American Dream gone sideways.
Deeply researched and compelling, The End of Loyalty will make you rethink how Americans can begin to resurrect the middle class.
Finalist for the Los Angeles Times book prize in current interestA best business book of the year in economics, Strategy+Business
Audiobook
First published May 30, 2017
86 people are currently reading
995 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
December 29, 2019
My problem is that he focuses 91.8% of his energy on the actions of companies, thereby answering his question with: basically, loyalty disappeared because paying CEOs and shareholders became more important than workers so companies said, "Screw you workers!" Oh, maybe he spent some time focusing on how selfish unions insisted on more money and benefits for the workers, but the companies agreed to them so that's really the companies' fault too because once you make a promise everybody knows that's a promise made in stone forever. To me, the author ignores the nuances of this dilemma.
I think the educational system is a big part of this larger collapse. Why do companies require 4 year degrees for entry-level/intern type work? Why do families foist upon kids practically from birth that they are going to college come hell or high water - regardless of the debt they're going to incur doing so regardless if they finish and get that Poli-Sci degree? Why are vocational schools considered less than by everyone when those are the very jobs that, once properly trained and apprenticed for, are very difficult to offshore? You gonna go to Vietnam for that haircut? Or to Mexico to get that muffler replaced?
An even bigger question for me is why hasn't the political apparatus taken more of a lead in the management of the labor market in this country? A purely capitalist society isn't going to shake out to be a completely moral society - there's winners and losers when capitalist forces collide. To me, it's the job of the government to regulate things and create something resembling a moral society while fostering conditions for a healthy degree of economic competition.
I might be one evil S.O.B. for typing this, but if I'm investing in a company I'm doing so because I primarily want a return on my investment, not to make the world a better place. Granted, it is possible to accomplish both goals with investment, but let's be honest, you're not doing that by investing in Coca-Cola, General Motors, or General Electric. I'm gambling in a way - instead of spending my money and buying something I can wear or eat or experience, I'm trying to earn more money. And yeah, if my money helps them find a cure for cancer, that's cool too but you better not turn around and give that cure away for nothing because you need to show me the money.
I think a big conundrum I had with this book is that it fails to accept as a precept that to answer to investors like me, these corporations are profit-seeking, amoral actors operating in a moral world. Rather, the book seems to presuppose that corporations (and their shareholders) should prioritize social responsibility over profit. At best, on a really nice day when everyone is feeling really generous, maybe you can convince shareholders to balance these two objectives, but I can't see how you can convince large groups of people to favor the former over the later to their own economic detriment.
I think the educational system is a big part of this larger collapse. Why do companies require 4 year degrees for entry-level/intern type work? Why do families foist upon kids practically from birth that they are going to college come hell or high water - regardless of the debt they're going to incur doing so regardless if they finish and get that Poli-Sci degree? Why are vocational schools considered less than by everyone when those are the very jobs that, once properly trained and apprenticed for, are very difficult to offshore? You gonna go to Vietnam for that haircut? Or to Mexico to get that muffler replaced?
An even bigger question for me is why hasn't the political apparatus taken more of a lead in the management of the labor market in this country? A purely capitalist society isn't going to shake out to be a completely moral society - there's winners and losers when capitalist forces collide. To me, it's the job of the government to regulate things and create something resembling a moral society while fostering conditions for a healthy degree of economic competition.
I might be one evil S.O.B. for typing this, but if I'm investing in a company I'm doing so because I primarily want a return on my investment, not to make the world a better place. Granted, it is possible to accomplish both goals with investment, but let's be honest, you're not doing that by investing in Coca-Cola, General Motors, or General Electric. I'm gambling in a way - instead of spending my money and buying something I can wear or eat or experience, I'm trying to earn more money. And yeah, if my money helps them find a cure for cancer, that's cool too but you better not turn around and give that cure away for nothing because you need to show me the money.
I think a big conundrum I had with this book is that it fails to accept as a precept that to answer to investors like me, these corporations are profit-seeking, amoral actors operating in a moral world. Rather, the book seems to presuppose that corporations (and their shareholders) should prioritize social responsibility over profit. At best, on a really nice day when everyone is feeling really generous, maybe you can convince shareholders to balance these two objectives, but I can't see how you can convince large groups of people to favor the former over the later to their own economic detriment.
July 13, 2017
Very interesting and of course disheartening. After reading it, the title seems misleading as the book makes evident that employees have always had to fight employers for living wages and benefits. The first part chronicles a history of strikes and the second part chronicles a history of company downsizing, automation, and globalization which has led to outsourcing with the end goal of maximizing CEO compensation and share holder profits.
August 25, 2017
This excellent historical account sheds light on the health care debate now raging in the United States. It shows how American companies, constrained by WWII wage controls, eagerly provided health benefits and pensions to attract workers. Affordable during the post-war boom, these benefits soon became monumental burdens during recessions. Companies soon shifted costs to their workers or cut benefits entirely. Insurance companies exploited the need to reduce costs. They inserted themselves between health care providers and payers, pocketing enormous profits at the expense of workers, companies and the government.
There is an interesting parallel between the health insurance industry and unions. Both are middle-men that exploit inefficient resource allocation. Health insurance companies ultimately extract payments from taxpayers. Countries that provide publicly funded health care do not support a massive insurance industry. Health insurers profit by increasing the cost of health care for consumers and the government. Similarly, unions inserted themselves as middle-men between workers and management. They attempted to extract higher wages that companies should have willingly provided to attract and retain workers. Companies obsessed with short term gains incurred the cost of unionization. As more companies adopted long term employment strategies, union membership became an unnecessary burden. It remains to be seen if health insurance companies suffer the same fate. The public will find ways to avoid ever rising premiums. The government has already tried to expand Medicaid and Medicare which pay health care providers directly. Middle-men that succumb to greed often become victims of their own success.
There is an interesting parallel between the health insurance industry and unions. Both are middle-men that exploit inefficient resource allocation. Health insurance companies ultimately extract payments from taxpayers. Countries that provide publicly funded health care do not support a massive insurance industry. Health insurers profit by increasing the cost of health care for consumers and the government. Similarly, unions inserted themselves as middle-men between workers and management. They attempted to extract higher wages that companies should have willingly provided to attract and retain workers. Companies obsessed with short term gains incurred the cost of unionization. As more companies adopted long term employment strategies, union membership became an unnecessary burden. It remains to be seen if health insurance companies suffer the same fate. The public will find ways to avoid ever rising premiums. The government has already tried to expand Medicaid and Medicare which pay health care providers directly. Middle-men that succumb to greed often become victims of their own success.
January 9, 2023
So the guy spent an entire book outlining issues, but about a page offering solutions. And very shallow solutions at that. Overall I liked it. He leaned into unionism too much in my opinion. And his politics are quite different than mine, so I think he injected that in a bit much. Part three of the book was fantastic. The rest was ok. A concerning topic that I think needs to be addressed voluntarily through culture (it won’t), rather than by force. I’d recommend for anyone who wonders how modern corporatism and shareholder capitalism have arrived at their current state
September 13, 2017
This is a hard book to review because it includes a lot of very good history. The premise of the book is to look at four major industrial corporations (Coke, GE, GM and Kodak) over several decades and to try to discern whether one can find a pattern of employer-employee relations. The author is a former WSJ reporter and now works with the Drucker Institute. It is his thesis that there was at one point a social contract between workers and their companies that has been violated over time. At one point workers who worked for big corporations could expect that if they were loyal to their company their company would be loyal to them. He calls this a "social contract". I think that is more than a little stretch. The book seems to assume that bargains that were negotiated at one point should be immutable. At best that is naive. A corporation has several constituencies that need to be attended to - they include shareholders, workers, and the executives and the community. The balance among these interests has changed over time. It is something that every corporate manager and employee should pay attention to.
There are some strong ideological biases in the presentation. Let me mention two. As industrial corporations developed in the Twentieth Century the relationship between employees and their companies began to evolve. But his characterizations of a number of key issues are odd. For example, he describes the FASB rule on pension accounting in biased terms - that somehow this was a secret way to cut workers out of their just share of corporate profits. The FASB rule developed as a result of lousy accounting. Some companies like Studebaker looked at the trust funds accumulated to fund employee retirement as their own - when indeed they should have been held in trust. ERISA was adopted by the Congress to address rules that should have been in place to accomplish those long term goals. Estimated long term costs is very tough. And most corporate pension managers were not very good at it. The FASB rule was developed to assure that people did the actuarial calculations to assure that the promises of pension programs were kept. He is critical of the 401K movement which gradually began to replace defined benefit retirement plans with defined contribution plans. When Barber Conable proposed to create the new section in the tax code he and his supporters talked about the dignity that each worker would get by owning their retirement assets - which would be outside the potential manipulations of malevolent corporate managers.
He also criticizes Walmart as basically an exploitive entity. That is utter nonsense and seems like this section was written by the couple of unions that have tried (unsuccessfully) to organize those stores. Walmart is ruthless in driving down costs and ultimately prices. But as Walmart grew it created thousands of what are called "Walmart Millionaires" who bought the stock as employees and then became millionaires as a result of Walmart's success. Walmart is indeed very tough on costs - that is how they can offer products which are cheaper than their competitors. Sol Price did a similar model with Costco and chose slightly different structures to achieve his objectives. But that does not mean that, despite the protestations of the Retail Clerks and the SEIU that the Walmart model is not a good one. He seems to be a big fan of industrial unions without bothering to understand why those entities became outdated in a world of logistics and just in time supply chains.
Here is what is very good about the book - Wartzman does a deep dive on management philosophy of those four major corporations over a very long time. His insights about what the companies did to deal with their environments over time is interesting and mostly accurate.
At the end of the book he limits that narrative by proposing a series of liberal bromides (the $15 minimum wage, etc). Oddly he does not deal with some public policies which would allow American corporations to deal with the changed conditions of global competition. For example, he mentions a book written by some Silicon Valley types who argued that we could begin to look at the employee/employer relationship as a series of rolling contracts where each side could periodically reassess the relationship.. Defined benefit retirement programs became outdated in part because they were often subject to accounting manipulations (The FASB rule mentioned above was a serious effort to understand how to reduce the possibility to manipulate those relationships.
Ultimately the author seems to think that if we just went back to the paternalistic relationship where the corporation and the union fought over how to take care of the employee we would all be better off. In a world that is increasingly global wouldn't it be better to think about ways to empower workers to own their assets and take control of their own lives and work. Wartzman wants to go back to paternalism, from my perspective in order to continue to catch the benefits of global markets we need to go back to ways to encourage individual employees to take responsibility for their own careers without the necessity of either a corporate or union welfare system to back them up.
This book is worth the read but the ultimate value is not to take the author's focus as gospel.
There are some strong ideological biases in the presentation. Let me mention two. As industrial corporations developed in the Twentieth Century the relationship between employees and their companies began to evolve. But his characterizations of a number of key issues are odd. For example, he describes the FASB rule on pension accounting in biased terms - that somehow this was a secret way to cut workers out of their just share of corporate profits. The FASB rule developed as a result of lousy accounting. Some companies like Studebaker looked at the trust funds accumulated to fund employee retirement as their own - when indeed they should have been held in trust. ERISA was adopted by the Congress to address rules that should have been in place to accomplish those long term goals. Estimated long term costs is very tough. And most corporate pension managers were not very good at it. The FASB rule was developed to assure that people did the actuarial calculations to assure that the promises of pension programs were kept. He is critical of the 401K movement which gradually began to replace defined benefit retirement plans with defined contribution plans. When Barber Conable proposed to create the new section in the tax code he and his supporters talked about the dignity that each worker would get by owning their retirement assets - which would be outside the potential manipulations of malevolent corporate managers.
He also criticizes Walmart as basically an exploitive entity. That is utter nonsense and seems like this section was written by the couple of unions that have tried (unsuccessfully) to organize those stores. Walmart is ruthless in driving down costs and ultimately prices. But as Walmart grew it created thousands of what are called "Walmart Millionaires" who bought the stock as employees and then became millionaires as a result of Walmart's success. Walmart is indeed very tough on costs - that is how they can offer products which are cheaper than their competitors. Sol Price did a similar model with Costco and chose slightly different structures to achieve his objectives. But that does not mean that, despite the protestations of the Retail Clerks and the SEIU that the Walmart model is not a good one. He seems to be a big fan of industrial unions without bothering to understand why those entities became outdated in a world of logistics and just in time supply chains.
Here is what is very good about the book - Wartzman does a deep dive on management philosophy of those four major corporations over a very long time. His insights about what the companies did to deal with their environments over time is interesting and mostly accurate.
At the end of the book he limits that narrative by proposing a series of liberal bromides (the $15 minimum wage, etc). Oddly he does not deal with some public policies which would allow American corporations to deal with the changed conditions of global competition. For example, he mentions a book written by some Silicon Valley types who argued that we could begin to look at the employee/employer relationship as a series of rolling contracts where each side could periodically reassess the relationship.. Defined benefit retirement programs became outdated in part because they were often subject to accounting manipulations (The FASB rule mentioned above was a serious effort to understand how to reduce the possibility to manipulate those relationships.
Ultimately the author seems to think that if we just went back to the paternalistic relationship where the corporation and the union fought over how to take care of the employee we would all be better off. In a world that is increasingly global wouldn't it be better to think about ways to empower workers to own their assets and take control of their own lives and work. Wartzman wants to go back to paternalism, from my perspective in order to continue to catch the benefits of global markets we need to go back to ways to encourage individual employees to take responsibility for their own careers without the necessity of either a corporate or union welfare system to back them up.
This book is worth the read but the ultimate value is not to take the author's focus as gospel.
December 9, 2017
I would have to agree with another review I read of this book, that it is a densely written but otherwise useful history of post-WWII corporation-employee relations, including the role unions played. Parts 1 and 2 of this book dive pretty deep on the specific characters and actions related to GM, GE, Kodak and Coke. I found Part 3 to be more interesting and accessible. Part 3 focused more on some modern examples and where we are today.
It was interesting to learn more about how we got to the modern job situation that exists for those of us working for others. Early large corporations post-WWII began to offer help beyond typical wages by paying for employees’ health insurance and providing pensions, and unions certainly played a role in this shift, whether or not they were able to organize at a particular company. Really since some of those early times, these corporations have been slowly eroding away the benefits they’ve been offering. Many of those in the baby boomer generation fortunate enough to work at a good and successful company were or are being taken care of long after retirement, though undoubtedly their benefits today aren’t as good as they used to be. Those of us in generations since cannot look forward to such great benefits, on average. I hear many today decrying the “good old days” when companies really cared about their employees. While I think there is some truth to this, these good old days represent a relatively narrow amount of time.
So why did things change? Wartzman talks about what many of us already know - it is the insatiable thirst for growth that is demanded from shareholders. Modern business dogma states the ultimate goal of a business is to maximize shareholder value. This is hammered home to those of us with business degrees. The shareholder is number one, and every action taken must benefit the shareholder. Of course, many of us are shareholders of myriad companies that benefit from this idea, though generally large institutional investors provide the most pressure to these companies to maximize value, not us individual investors, some of which may be okay with reduced growth if a company is sharing the wealth with their employees. I wonder what would happen if this idea changed even just slightly, from the focus being solely on maximizing value to the shareholder, which makes you want to pay as little as possible to your employees, to striking some kind of balance between the two. Of course that thought is anathema to modern business orthodoxy, of which I have been educated and trained as a part of. But I wonder how society would change if shareholder importance was downgraded and employee welfare upgraded.
It was interesting to learn more about how we got to the modern job situation that exists for those of us working for others. Early large corporations post-WWII began to offer help beyond typical wages by paying for employees’ health insurance and providing pensions, and unions certainly played a role in this shift, whether or not they were able to organize at a particular company. Really since some of those early times, these corporations have been slowly eroding away the benefits they’ve been offering. Many of those in the baby boomer generation fortunate enough to work at a good and successful company were or are being taken care of long after retirement, though undoubtedly their benefits today aren’t as good as they used to be. Those of us in generations since cannot look forward to such great benefits, on average. I hear many today decrying the “good old days” when companies really cared about their employees. While I think there is some truth to this, these good old days represent a relatively narrow amount of time.
So why did things change? Wartzman talks about what many of us already know - it is the insatiable thirst for growth that is demanded from shareholders. Modern business dogma states the ultimate goal of a business is to maximize shareholder value. This is hammered home to those of us with business degrees. The shareholder is number one, and every action taken must benefit the shareholder. Of course, many of us are shareholders of myriad companies that benefit from this idea, though generally large institutional investors provide the most pressure to these companies to maximize value, not us individual investors, some of which may be okay with reduced growth if a company is sharing the wealth with their employees. I wonder what would happen if this idea changed even just slightly, from the focus being solely on maximizing value to the shareholder, which makes you want to pay as little as possible to your employees, to striking some kind of balance between the two. Of course that thought is anathema to modern business orthodoxy, of which I have been educated and trained as a part of. But I wonder how society would change if shareholder importance was downgraded and employee welfare upgraded.
July 14, 2021
This book was alright. Nothing to write home about.
The three industrial revolutions go as follows: Muscle work, routine work, then finally brain work. We're in the last one.
The three industrial revolutions go as follows: Muscle work, routine work, then finally brain work. We're in the last one.
August 14, 2017
The book's focus is on how General Motors, General Electric, Kodak and Coca Cola handled employee relations and hiring from the 1920's to today. What interests me were the stories of the impact on employees, particularly with those of long tenure, when the company let them go. (e.g. An IBM employee received a termination letter describing him as a "surplus employee.") There is also an eye opening chapter on how Walmart treats their employees. (To be charitable it can be described as poorly and cheaply.)
This is a well researched book and should be required reading for those college students studying business or those interested in a career in management.
This is a well researched book and should be required reading for those college students studying business or those interested in a career in management.
March 1, 2018
This is a deeply researched book -- so deeply researched that the author provided end notes on line. This research is evident throughout as Wartzman provides one story after another that shows the changes in the American workscape. However, a lot of these stories have been told previously, in a much shorter format. Do we have to go back to World War 2 to know that American employers have only treated workers as important assets for a short time? Anyone who has worked for a while has seen this story unfold in their own lives.
I think this is an important work, with great depth. In addition, Wartzman is very adept at interweaving personal stories and anecdotes as methods to put larger events into perspective. Luckily, this is written in such a way that you can pick and chose which decade(s) you want to learn more about. But at the end, the story is the same. A few employers used to treat their workers really well. Those companies did so for a variety of reasons, including the practical belief that happy employees would be more productive. We are now firmly in the 4% unemployment range here in the US -- which places us below where we were in 2007. I'd like to think that employers will slightly loosen the endless drive towards productivity and will decide to treat their employees better. However, I suspect that Wartzman could come back a decade from now and write the same story. In that sense the book is deeply disturbing.
I think this is an important work, with great depth. In addition, Wartzman is very adept at interweaving personal stories and anecdotes as methods to put larger events into perspective. Luckily, this is written in such a way that you can pick and chose which decade(s) you want to learn more about. But at the end, the story is the same. A few employers used to treat their workers really well. Those companies did so for a variety of reasons, including the practical belief that happy employees would be more productive. We are now firmly in the 4% unemployment range here in the US -- which places us below where we were in 2007. I'd like to think that employers will slightly loosen the endless drive towards productivity and will decide to treat their employees better. However, I suspect that Wartzman could come back a decade from now and write the same story. In that sense the book is deeply disturbing.
July 28, 2017
A fascinating historical review of the relationship between employee and employer in the US. At first, this book starts off as a traditional review of organized labor in the US (nothing new in the telling of this history) but the book develops a sense of pull and power as it continues, especially as it approaches contemporary times.
The author combines a keen eye for traditional historical work with attention to economic data to back up assertions throughout the text, along with a sensitive narrative ear that supplements the economic trend data with personal stories of CEOs, labor leaders, and everyday line workers. The book really excels in the combination of these two types of historical telling.
The author seems to have a progressive disposition with real empathy for the troubles of everyday workers, though he also is a realist, acknowledging macro economic forces. He is slow to attribute nefarious motives to everybody except the worst actors (and there are many). This book is highly recommended for everyone, as it provides a nice historical context to all of the anxiety that most of us feel about the nature of the changing economy and the dissolution of the employee-employer social contract.
If there is a criticism of the book, it is that the author doesn't really offer any specific proposals on how we should all adapt to the new economic realities. There are a few suggestions at the closing of the book (adoption of a $15 minimum wage, change in tax structure), though the author doesn't put any real detail or analysis of these suggestions. I am hoping that he's saving that analysis for his next book!
The author combines a keen eye for traditional historical work with attention to economic data to back up assertions throughout the text, along with a sensitive narrative ear that supplements the economic trend data with personal stories of CEOs, labor leaders, and everyday line workers. The book really excels in the combination of these two types of historical telling.
The author seems to have a progressive disposition with real empathy for the troubles of everyday workers, though he also is a realist, acknowledging macro economic forces. He is slow to attribute nefarious motives to everybody except the worst actors (and there are many). This book is highly recommended for everyone, as it provides a nice historical context to all of the anxiety that most of us feel about the nature of the changing economy and the dissolution of the employee-employer social contract.
If there is a criticism of the book, it is that the author doesn't really offer any specific proposals on how we should all adapt to the new economic realities. There are a few suggestions at the closing of the book (adoption of a $15 minimum wage, change in tax structure), though the author doesn't put any real detail or analysis of these suggestions. I am hoping that he's saving that analysis for his next book!
February 4, 2025
Overall, I think that this is a book that most Americans, given the current state of the economy and labor relations, should read.
Many of us look back fondly to a time that is, at this point, fading away from living memory. It was a time when "30 years and pension" was a common feature of the American economy. But what I think is important in this book is the fact that this wasn't just a given. The social contract between American business and the American worker was hard fought over by laborers and Unions (and often with the begrudging help of corporate governance itself).
Even then, as the author points out, the rose-colored glasses that we have for the 1950s and 1960s are often incorrect. Only 50% of workers were given pensions by their employers, which frequently left a retired worker barely over the poverty level. Not even to mention all of the people who were intentionally excluded from participating and sharing in that "Golden Age" of American labor (women, people of color).
The only demerits that I can give the book is that it frequently parades quotes from a lot of people and there are a lot of people to try to keep track of. Not that this is the worst thing in the whole world. It's just hard to remember all of the names of the folks that come and go in nearly 100 years of labor history. Does bog down the reader trying to parse who is important and who is only being used as an example.
All in all, a good book and a valuable read to know how the American economy developed in the last 100 years from welfare capitalism to a cult of shareholder dominance.
Many of us look back fondly to a time that is, at this point, fading away from living memory. It was a time when "30 years and pension" was a common feature of the American economy. But what I think is important in this book is the fact that this wasn't just a given. The social contract between American business and the American worker was hard fought over by laborers and Unions (and often with the begrudging help of corporate governance itself).
Even then, as the author points out, the rose-colored glasses that we have for the 1950s and 1960s are often incorrect. Only 50% of workers were given pensions by their employers, which frequently left a retired worker barely over the poverty level. Not even to mention all of the people who were intentionally excluded from participating and sharing in that "Golden Age" of American labor (women, people of color).
The only demerits that I can give the book is that it frequently parades quotes from a lot of people and there are a lot of people to try to keep track of. Not that this is the worst thing in the whole world. It's just hard to remember all of the names of the folks that come and go in nearly 100 years of labor history. Does bog down the reader trying to parse who is important and who is only being used as an example.
All in all, a good book and a valuable read to know how the American economy developed in the last 100 years from welfare capitalism to a cult of shareholder dominance.
November 22, 2017
A detailed history of the past 70 years or so of company-employee relations in the United States. The overriding theme of the book is that for white males, the best time to be a worker was in the 1950s and the 1960s. The author calls this period the “Golden Age”. Since then women and minorities have made advances, but the author views the outlook for the majority of workers today as bleak.
The author does not claim that the Golden Age was perfect. Corporate executives were not angels, and there were some bitter battles between companies and employees, but occasionally and in some places companies sacrificed a bit of the bottom line for the good of their workers. For many workers wages were good, there were pensions, health benefits, and most important, job security.
Most of the book is the history of how these relatively good conditions for workers gradually eroded bit by bit, for various reasons. In the 50s and 60s the United States was fortunate to be the only country not heavily damaged in World War II. As other countries recovered, there was more competition, which forced wages down. Work was automated more and more. Jobs required more and more skills and education. The unions steadily lost membership and influence.
The author, however, thinks that the most important factor in the decline of worker conditions is that corporations today are run for the benefit of investors and the top executives. Business leaders, the author says, are just plain callous and greedy.
The author does not claim that the Golden Age was perfect. Corporate executives were not angels, and there were some bitter battles between companies and employees, but occasionally and in some places companies sacrificed a bit of the bottom line for the good of their workers. For many workers wages were good, there were pensions, health benefits, and most important, job security.
Most of the book is the history of how these relatively good conditions for workers gradually eroded bit by bit, for various reasons. In the 50s and 60s the United States was fortunate to be the only country not heavily damaged in World War II. As other countries recovered, there was more competition, which forced wages down. Work was automated more and more. Jobs required more and more skills and education. The unions steadily lost membership and influence.
The author, however, thinks that the most important factor in the decline of worker conditions is that corporations today are run for the benefit of investors and the top executives. Business leaders, the author says, are just plain callous and greedy.
May 11, 2021
Once, there was a time in America when there existed a social contract between employers and employees. In return of employees' work, the companies were obligated to look after their workers' general welfare, even to their graves. Jobs were so secure that even your children could be expected to work together with you within same office. However, as this book shown, those rosy pictures were set to be gradually degrading.
First, there were unions, who sought better lives for their members, who lacked the capacity to go toe-to-toe with the management, then, things gradually turned to worse, either for companies, or (mostly) workers, and even for both them at the same time, as issues such as inflation, economic recession, racism and sexism continued to break the good old contract, degrading the bond of loyalty that existed between companies and workers. Globalization, which brought foreign competitions and cheaper products forced companies to take radical measures, from cutting benefits, to eliminating jobs altogether. The rise and fall of America's great companies, such as General Motors, General Electric, Kodak, Coca Cola and Wal-mart were described.
As the author assumes, in face of such challenges, there is simply no way that America could return to the old time. Government must take more active stance to ensure that fairness for workers must be obtained while the companies stay productive, two sides of a coin that are quite difficult to balance, indeed. An informative, an intriguing reading, especially as I am now part of the workforce.
First, there were unions, who sought better lives for their members, who lacked the capacity to go toe-to-toe with the management, then, things gradually turned to worse, either for companies, or (mostly) workers, and even for both them at the same time, as issues such as inflation, economic recession, racism and sexism continued to break the good old contract, degrading the bond of loyalty that existed between companies and workers. Globalization, which brought foreign competitions and cheaper products forced companies to take radical measures, from cutting benefits, to eliminating jobs altogether. The rise and fall of America's great companies, such as General Motors, General Electric, Kodak, Coca Cola and Wal-mart were described.
As the author assumes, in face of such challenges, there is simply no way that America could return to the old time. Government must take more active stance to ensure that fairness for workers must be obtained while the companies stay productive, two sides of a coin that are quite difficult to balance, indeed. An informative, an intriguing reading, especially as I am now part of the workforce.
November 6, 2023
The book is a shame since the subject material had a lot of potential and is quite important. The first two parts are incredibly bloated and are a dense retelling of the post-war economy. Wartzman seems to want to use as many random quotes as possible a la AP US history essay question style and at times fails to create a compelling narrative. He just regurgitates every single union/company negotiation, new management technique, whatever then brings up the social change that supposedly stemmed from it. I mean, sure, there could have been a cause and effect relationship, but he doesn't connect the dots well.
Part 3 is much more compelling, but I feel that he skates over important factors. You're going to talk about the loss of good jobs and weakening of unions and NOT vilify Ronald Reagan and his administration? Nah that's unacceptable. At least he agrees that Walmart is evil.
I also think he should have touched on rising income inequality due to exorbitant CEO salaries and what caused this to haopen, but he seemed way more focused on the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US.
Part 3 is much more compelling, but I feel that he skates over important factors. You're going to talk about the loss of good jobs and weakening of unions and NOT vilify Ronald Reagan and his administration? Nah that's unacceptable. At least he agrees that Walmart is evil.
I also think he should have touched on rising income inequality due to exorbitant CEO salaries and what caused this to haopen, but he seemed way more focused on the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 25, 2018
Ugh. This is so depressing. There are plenty of good detailed reviews here already, and one of the telling patterns is that the negative reviews persistently come from people who show a distinctly libertarian, profit-above-all mentality that is one of the driving factors causing such terrible wealth disparity and job insecurity in this nation. The author carefully looks at all the factors including union overreach as much as corporate greed, and gives a very detailed history, that is sometimes tedious for someone like me who is not a big fan of history in general (although more than I used to be).
September 29, 2017
A really informative book regarding the trajectory of union influence and effectiveness vis a vis the relative power of management as exemplified via the experience of five iconic companies in the US. While the premise is very interesting, it's execution was not tremendously effective in that the narrative waned and drifted at times. I felt that the five companies' experience was described more anecdotally than systematically. Nonetheless, it was an interesting read and adequately conveyed the shifting sands of union influence into the present time.
February 12, 2023
Despite the lack of new information, The End of Loyalty provides a useful story about the rise and fall of the relationship between large employers and their employees since WWII.
If you need a refresher, this is it.
I entered the workforce in 1968, and lived through some of what Wartzman presents. His narrative rings true.
Recommended for the labor history of the four large companies. Thanks for writing it.
If you need a refresher, this is it.
I entered the workforce in 1968, and lived through some of what Wartzman presents. His narrative rings true.
Recommended for the labor history of the four large companies. Thanks for writing it.
August 29, 2017
I love this book. I am amazed at Rick Wartazman's skill at smoothly delivering his story, choosing anecdotes sparingly, making assimilation effortless for the reader. I didn't want it to end. Anyone whose father or grandfather worked for corporations or as labor in the last century must read it: you'll understand the forces in their lives much more clearly.
November 11, 2017
Very eye opening book on the history of the relationship between employer and employee. It helped me understand why US workers had it so good in the 50s and 60s, and why things have changed since.
January 22, 2020
More like a cursory, but still quite long, description of manufacturing and unions in the 1940-1980s.
May 15, 2022
Rick Wartzman provides a great history of the interplay of business and politics (heavily focused on management practices) which resulted in the Walmartization of the US economy.
August 1, 2017
Many people have a nostalgia for a bygone era when workers had job security, as well as decent wages and benefits. What changed and how accurate was this picture?
The answer, according to Rick Wartzman’s The End of Loyalty: The Rise and Fall of Good Jobs in America, is that it’s complicated. While some people, most notably white males, unquestionably fared well there were a number of other people who did not. Furthermore, even in the idolized post-World War II era, not everyone worked for the same employer for their entire career.
Wartzman examines the economic changes through the lens of Coca-Cola, Kodak, General Electric and General Motors. These companies did provide generous benefits and perks for their employees in the post-World War II era; however, the decision to do so was not one of altruism but rather self-interest: i.e. the companies hoped that doing so would head off support for more regulation and government-involvement.
Eventually, a variety of forces forced a paradigm shift away from this system of stable employment and generous benefits: layoffs became prevalent 1980’s and 1990’s, surviving employees could no longer count on the job security they previously had, and new employees received less generous benefits and compensation than their predecessors.
Although Wartzman clearly has a nostalgia for a bygone era, he deserves credit for being relatively intellectually honest about the bad: white males were mostly the ones who benefited from job security and generous benefits, whereas others did not fare as well; even during the era not every company provided such generous benefits, and not everyone enjoyed job security. Furthermore, Wartzman acknowledges that the job security and generous benefits associated with an earlier era, even at big companies, are gone for good.
The answer, according to Rick Wartzman’s The End of Loyalty: The Rise and Fall of Good Jobs in America, is that it’s complicated. While some people, most notably white males, unquestionably fared well there were a number of other people who did not. Furthermore, even in the idolized post-World War II era, not everyone worked for the same employer for their entire career.
Wartzman examines the economic changes through the lens of Coca-Cola, Kodak, General Electric and General Motors. These companies did provide generous benefits and perks for their employees in the post-World War II era; however, the decision to do so was not one of altruism but rather self-interest: i.e. the companies hoped that doing so would head off support for more regulation and government-involvement.
Eventually, a variety of forces forced a paradigm shift away from this system of stable employment and generous benefits: layoffs became prevalent 1980’s and 1990’s, surviving employees could no longer count on the job security they previously had, and new employees received less generous benefits and compensation than their predecessors.
Although Wartzman clearly has a nostalgia for a bygone era, he deserves credit for being relatively intellectually honest about the bad: white males were mostly the ones who benefited from job security and generous benefits, whereas others did not fare as well; even during the era not every company provided such generous benefits, and not everyone enjoyed job security. Furthermore, Wartzman acknowledges that the job security and generous benefits associated with an earlier era, even at big companies, are gone for good.
August 30, 2019
Incredibly fascinating and very well-written. The End of Loyalty made me rethink some of my assumptions - which is exactly what a book should do.
November 6, 2022
Not my cup of tea, too dry for my taste.
Read
April 20, 2018331.70097 W298 2017
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews