Welfarism was defined by the United States (US) Department of Labour in 1919 as 'Anything for the comfort and improvement, intellectual or social, of the employees, over and above wages paid, which is not a necessity of industry nor required by law'. ^[1] Thus, it did not involve a definite set of practices, but covered a wide range of programs of a voluntary nature. Welfare schemes that could have been introduced in conjunction with house journals include provident funds, educational facilities, housing and stores, recreational facilities, medical care, and other forms of superior amenities. Essentially, employers were concerned with the supply and efficiency of labour in the introduction of welfare schemes. In terms of supply, the goal was to improve the quantity and quality of the company's labour stock. In dealing with efficiency, management wanted to convert labour power (the potential to work) into labour (actual work effort). To achieve this objective, welfare schemes were designed to enhance managerial control of labour, and to maintain this control in the face of attempts at resistance or regulation by individual workers, unions, and the state. In other words, welfarism was a method of reinforcing managerial prerogative over production and personnel decisions at the workplace. ^[2]

     Welfarism was a popular management strategy overseas, particularly in the US, during the first three decades of the twentieth century. However, the movement was slower to develop in Australia. The vast majority of private sector enterprises remained small-scale prior to WWII, and entrepreneurs or the foremen relied on personal contact and simple forms of control. Despite the limited number of companies experimenting with the strategy, the number of workers covered was considerable. Public sector employment was proportionately significant in Australia, and such enterprises were often leaders in the establishment of welfare schemes. Furthermore, while the single comprehensive survey of inter-war industrial welfarism in Australia, conducted by Mauldon in 1931, found only seventy-six private establishments with organised welfare schemes, because of the size of most of the firms, the aggregate number of employees affected totaled about 40,000. In other words, welfarism in the private sector was generally introduced by larger organizations seeking new ways to manage a growing workforce, and that had the financial resources to experiment. ^[3]

     However, it was during WWII that the welfare movement expanded rapidly in Australian industry. In a similar way to the British and US Governments during WWI, the Australian federal Government played a crucial role in promoting welfarism as a way of reducing absenteeism and improving morale amongst an industrially inexperienced workforce. The government initiated an emergency training scheme for welfare officers who were subsequently employed in both public and private establishments. State departments were also instrumental in promoting welfarism as a labour management strategy to private industry. By mid-1945, more than 100 welfare officers were employed in Australian industry, 30 per cent of these in the private sector. ^[4]

     State advocacy for welfarism continued into the immediate post-war period, with the continuation of training courses for welfare officers, and the promotion of the strategy through government publications. This period witnessed rapid economic growth and an expansion in product demand. Labour markets became far tighter and employers were faced with a full employment economy in which workers and their unions had significantly greater bargaining power. This context saw a renewed focus on welfare provision in an attempt to attract and retain scarce workers, and to reduce labour militancy. At the same time, these contextual challenges prompted employers to expand the personnel function, a development again promoted by the state. Overseas, the personnel movement had taken root and, as in the pre-WWII period, local subsidiaries of foreign companies imported personnel techniques and provided examples to local industry of more advanced labour management practices. The role of personnel officers was subsequently extended beyond traditional welfare provision to include formalized employment, induction and training procedures and financial incentive schemes. As a result, welfarism was gradually subsumed as part of the personnel management movement in post-War Australian industry.

House journals were not used extensively by Australian employers in the period prior to WWII. Indeed, Mauldon's 1931 survey found that of the 76 welfarist firms, only four had house journals. Some journals appeared early in the century such David Jones' Between Ourselves which ran between 1919 and 1921. In the public sector, the NSW Government Railway's Institute launched the New South Wales Railway Budget in September 1892, the first in a continuous series of staff magazines until 1930 when the constraints of the depression forced its discontinuance. However, it was not until the war year that house journals became popular in Australian industry. ^[5]

     During the war years there was a move by the Department of Labour and National Service (DLNS) to establish factory newspapers or magazines in factories where no such publications existed and to improve the standard of the established magazines. At a conference called to discuss these possibilities in 1943, it was decided that the publication of factory newspapers or magazines was desirable for factory morale and unity and should be encouraged or initiated by welfare officers. A ban on paper supplies was mentioned as a stumbling block, but it was decided that steps be taken to lift this ban to facilitate the publication of house journals. This was achieved, a permit then being required for the release of the necessary amount of paper. ^[6]

     The need to improve morale and limit the threat of labour disruptions during the post-War period caused an increase in the publication of these journals. A 1948 survey conducted by the DLNS examined 83 house journals across NSW, Victoria and South Australia, while a 1954 survey received information from 53 establishments in Melbourne alone. The latter survey was based on answers to questionnaires sent to all establishments in Melbourne known to publish or to have published, house journals. Of the 53 completed, the most heavily represented were chemical and oils (8), paper products (5), and metal manufacture, vehicle construction, and retail (4 each). This suggests the need for new approaches to assist in the management of growing workforces in these industries during the post-War period. However, all told 21 different industries were represented thus suggesting the value of house journals to a wide range of employers. Indeed, in 1956, the Industrial Services Division of the DLNS reported on the large and increasing number of organisations finding house journals 'to be a worthwhile investment' due to their 'effectiveness for passing on vital information to employees', and the contribution that a journal could make to 'team spirit'. ^[7]

By 1963, the trend, particularly among larger companies, was one of making public relations departments responsible for the production of house journals. This was accompanied by the reduction in the number of welfare or personnel departments having editorial responsibility for the magazine. Such arrangements were in line with a wider trend amongst companies of shifting the responsibility for schemes from welfare committees or departments to other departments or outside organisations. ^[8]

The two primary aims of employers when introducing a house journal were to keep employees informed, and to create an esprit de corps. However, evidence suggests that it was the latter goal, and its role in enhancing managerial prerogative, that took precedence. As the General Manager of the Bank of NSW wrote in the first issue of The Etruscan, the Bank's journal:

The acquisition of further knowledge and the development of efficiency are essentials, but no aim is more important than the maintenance, throughout the service of the spirit of fellowship, mutual confidence and co-operation, that are characteristics of our staff. It was in the minds of those who moved for the establishment of this magazine that, in drawing us all still further together, it would strengthen the unity that is a feature of our service today. ^[9]

The 'one big happy family' rhetoric of house journals often depicted itself in the names of the magazines, for example, Between Ourselves, We at Shell. Other titles sought to dispel the harshness of industrialisation by injecting a touch of humour such as Gunam Flash, Hendon Howl, Wrangler. ^[10]

     How were house journals designed to create the 'one big happy family' image? On the one hand, the goal was to convince employees that the company cared about their personal goals and aspirations. This is apparent in the large amount of space devoted to issues such as births of children, marriages, travel, promotions and general gossip. Indeed, the 1948 survey of 83 house journals found that on average these journals devoted 42.7 per cent of space to material of special interest to employees including in-plant and off-plant personal items and company sporting and social activities ^[11] . As Brandes has noted; 'When employees saw their own goals and those of their work-mates materialising, they would develop a consciousness of their stake in the company's success. The feeling that personal goals could be achieved by association with a company would manifest itself in an enhanced spirit of cooperation, mutual respect, and esprit de corps'. ^[12]

     On the other hand, house journals often aimed to build worker trust in management. Executives would often write a column for the journal, an editorial or a series of articles, depicting themselves as an expert and in turn impressing upon the employees their management's wisdom. Similarly, magazine editors often tried to build trust by personalising management. In general, this meant portraying executives, not as impersonal bureaucrats, but as humans. For example, the front page of the Sulphide Corporation's employee magazine at its Cockle Creek Chemical Works was devoted to 'Potted Biographies' – photographs and autobiographies of one staff and one non-staff member. This could create the impression that every individual was equally valuable to the organisation. Once the employees accepted management's expertise, so the assumption went, they would be content with their place in the organisational hierarchy. This would increase compliance to management's dictates, in turn fostering industrial peace and harmony. ^[13]

     Finding the right balance of space devoted to workers and to management was clearly difficult. A 1949 study of James Hardie & Co. indicates that too much focus on management as experts, and as humans, could breed resentment amongst employees. The following comments were typical of employee views about personal items in Fibrolite Trimmings, the house journal of the company: 'The men are interested in news of the factory doings'; 'There is too much about the lives of senior company men. They forget that some employees also have very interesting lives'; 'Some fellows like the bits about their work friends the best'; 'Trimmings only contains items about the office people. I submitted a notice about my mate's engagement, but it wasn't published. Who cares what the office people do, or whether office blokes plant lawns or build houses in their spare time?' ^[14] This suggests that workers were more likely to identify with each other on a personal capacity through house magazines than with management and the company as a homogenous unit.

     The above discussion indicates a subtle approach to moulding worker attitudes and building unity and commitment. According to Brandes, most editors of house journals in the US preferred this indirect method of conveying their message. A 1922 report by the National Personnel Association 'showed that editors treated frank discussion of controversial topics much like a cat treats water'. The content of these journals focused mainly on trivia and 'folksy humour', however they were still designed to sell a social message. As one editor said: 'Call it education or propaganda or what not, a continuous campaign of thought direction is necessary…in order to produce the greatest degree of loyalty and efficiency.' ^[15]                    Nevertheless, the NSW Government Railways, one of the Australia's largest employers and a leader in welfarism, rejected the subtle approach, and directly promoted managerial goals through house journals. While the NSW Railways Budget contained the general light-hearted content found in other journals, the goals of unity and efficiency were explicitly promoted. The initial editorial of the NSW Railways Budget, stated that it aimed to increase the workforce's 'esprit de corps' and that the railway's success depended upon the co-operation of all, that there could not be any 'drones', as 'all must be working bees in this hive of industry; each in his allotted sphere must work with earnestness to build a complete and harmonious whole'. ^[16] The aim was the same 32 years later when The Staff was launched as the next in the series of house journals of the Railways and Tramways. 'Its sole aim, its one ambition, will be to inculcate a spirit of fraternity and to create an atmosphere of contentment throughout the entire service. Efficiency and public approval will inevitably follow.' ^[17] In the next issue it was noted that 'in whatever respects its scope is extended, the original intention remains fixed – that is, that the goal of every railway and tramway man's ambition must be the betterment of himself and the improvement of the service we render to the public'. ^[18]

     The Staff incorporated the existing publications of the Railways – The Railway Magazine, The Commissioners Monthly Bulletin, the Safety First Pamphlet and It's Your Service – Help Improve It. The latter was a monthly four-page publication launched in November 1921 with the aim of 'securing the better co-operation of staff in their efforts to achieve the highest possible efficiency'. ^[19] It presented the previous month's results of working and indicated paths to future improvements, and stressed the importance of public relations, economies, cooperation with and loyalty to management. In addition, the publication emphasised that it was the worker's fault and not his job, if he disliked his work, and pointed out the opportunities of advancement and community service through hard work.

     The content of this publication remained unchanged when it was incorporated into The Staff. Separate sections were devoted to 'Its Your Service', and to 'Safety'. Quotes about efficiency were often scattered throughout the pages of The Staff such as this from Henry Ford: 'A manual labourer must have a limit on his hours, otherwise he will wear himself out. If he intends to remain always a manual labourer, then he should forget about his work when the whistle blows; but if he intends to go forward and do anything, the whistle is only the signal to start thinking over the day's work in order to discover how it might be done better.' And this from George Ade: 'Every man is a busy bee when he finds the work he likes. He is called 'lazy' only when he hangs back on a job that does not arouse his interest. Get friendly with your task and the hours will be short'. ^[20] In addition, the journal reported the results of student's exams, published lists of names of workers receiving bonuses and commendations for suggestions and inventions, encouraging the men to better themselves. Clearly then, The Staff was not an exercise in the subtle moulding of worker attitudes. It directly promoted its goals of unity, co-operation and efficiency and, indeed, emblazoned its motto of 'Safety, Courtesy and Efficiency' on the cover of each issue.

     House journals were also a public relations device. Indeed, they provided an opportunity for companies to publicise their efforts to improve the physical and cultural wellbeing of workers. A 1963 survey found that those companies distributing magazines by mail did so with a view to fostering good public relations. Thirty-one of the 41 undertakings studied distributed copies outside the organisation. Recipients in order of frequency were retired officers, agents, parent or associated overseas companies, members of Parliament, customers, newspapers, unions, radio and television stations, schools, libraries, and other undertakings. The recipients demonstrate the widespread publicity gained from house-journals. While this could cultivate favourable public opinion, the focus on parliamentary members and unions also indicates a direct strategy to curtail outside intervention and regulation. ^[21]

     The NSW Railways provides an example of an undertaking using a house journal for public relations purposes. In December 1921 the Railway Commissioners appointed a Publicity Officer whose role was to supply information to the press concerning railway operations and to reply to correspondence and newspaper criticisms. By July 1925 the Publicity Officer supervised all management publications, including The Staff. Consequently, a large proportion of the house journal was devoted to 'Public Relations'. This section replied to the criticisms, complaints and misrepresentations laid on the railways by the media and press. The aim, according to the editor in the first issue, 'is to assist every member of the railway and tramway staffs to be prepared to answer criticism, because we are all concerned when the service is attacked. If we are wrong, we will admit it; if our critics are wrong we will say so in plain terms.' ^[22]

     And in plain terms they did reply. Indeed, some readers resented the deliberate frankness that characterised this section of the journal. But as stated in the journal; 'When people who profess to speak on behalf of the public suggest that the railway and tramway services are inefficiently operated and staffed with incompetents, or worse, The Staff intends to stand up to them.' However, this attitude could only be maintained if the services rendered were efficient. For this reason, it was stressed to the workers, 'The Staff has no more time for the incompetent or inefficient employee than it has for the unjust critic…The Staff will fight both, because we realise that only in that way can we ensure for the services the measure of public approval which we are convinced is their legitimate due.' ^[23] Thus, the public relations section of The Staff served a number of purposes. Firstly it defended the company against public criticism and calls for outside intervention in the service. Secondly, it promoted reciprocal loyalty from workers – as was stated in the first volume of The Staff, 'Help us, and you will find that we will be able to help you!' ^[24] If the enterprise was willing to so publicly defend the efficiency of its employees', the workers were encouraged to provide work effort worth defending. It also created an 'us against them' atmosphere, in which 'us' were the entire Railway service, from the high commissioner down to the 'lowliest' employee, hence creating unity within.

     So what then of the communication role of house journals? The weight afforded to this and the more general appeal topics designed to promote unity and disseminate company propaganda varied between companies. The 1948 survey of Australian industry discovered a trend away from persistent gossip in house journals, a trend that was also occurring in the US. When the various topics in the journals were grouped, matters of special concern to management (company policy and practice, technical matters, safety and health) were given 27.2 per cent of the space, material of special interest to employees (letters to the editor, in-plant and off-plant personal items, and sporting and social activities) received 42.7 per cent, general material received 26.4 per cent, and advertising 3.7 per cent. While this compared favourably to a study conducted in the US, it still fell short of the break down recommended in an influential book of the time The Successful Employee Publication - management matters 40 per cent; employees' interests, 50 per cent; and other material, 10 per cent. If these recommendations were valid, the typical house journal in Australia should have devoted more space to management issues if it was to effectively fulfil its functions as a communication tool. The large amount of space devoted to general topics may be indicative of the need to provide general magazine appeal. More importantly, it suggests that Australian house journals were designed with an eye to creating unity and building contentment and commitment. ^[25]

     Particularly in the period prior to WWII, house journals emphasised the perceived role of women in industry and at home. For example, the Bank of New South Wales often included articles that would interest the females such as 'A knack with Nylon', 'Women and Television', 'Wine, Women and…Devilled Crab', as well as advice on how to create a healthy diet for a family. ^[26] Reekie demonstrates how house journals in the retail industry promoted the gendered expectations of staff. David Jones' Between Ourselves for example urged male employees to 'stick with the firm' by pursuing long-term career goals, while 'women were subjected to numerous, if chatty and often humorous, injunctions relating to their physical appearance, deference to male authority and the adoption of middle class values of respectability'. A common theme was the necessity for a saleswoman to be 'charming' to her customers. As Reekie notes, 'A charming feminine and deferential sales assistant would not only secure more custom for the store but was also less likely to challenge her employer over wages and working conditions'. ^[27]

     Nevertheless, the 1948 survey of house journals found that those of department stores devoted the most space to 'management communications', perhaps due to the nature of business. It was reported that department stores tended to include their employees in their public relations policy as not only were the employees in close contact with the buying public, they were also potential customers, hence the need to keep them informed on company policy, practices and developments. Consistent with pre-War findings, however, the magazines from the 'women's' industries devoted most space to topics not related to the plant. The distribution of space between topics shown by 'men's industries' magazines was very similar to that shown by the overall total. Textile mill magazines had the least space devoted to communications from management, with 70 per cent of space allocated to material not related to the work situation. The survey also found that companies based in more than one state devoted much of the same space to employees' interests as the other groups, although these magazines paid more attention to in-plant personal items. This arose from the need to keep employees informed of other branches activities, a need not so prominent when employees were in one establishment. ^[28]

     While there was a trend towards allocating more space to management or work matters during the post-War period, journals needed to be readable if they were to serve as an educational or communicative tool. Most studies of house magazines during the post-War period used a method based on the length of sentences used together with syllable count of the words in a set sample passage in order to determine readability. A 1949 study of the readability of 83 Australian magazines based on this method concluded that nearly three-quarters were either fairly difficult or difficult to read. In human interest, they performed better, although 19 were 'dull or only mildly interesting'. The authors concluded that 'This evidence, which agrees with what one might have thought from a critical scanning of the magazines, suggests that house magazines suffer as a means of communication because they are not as readable as they might be'. ^[29]

     The nature of the information provided was also limited in the eyes of some workers. Workers at the Brooklyn factory and South Melbourne office of James Hardie & Co., for example, desired greater information on working conditions, company problems, and company products to be included in the company's journal Fibrolite Trimmings. While a 1949 analysis of five monthly issues of the journal found that Trimmings devoted a greater proportion of space to management topics than average (when compared to the 1948 survey above), this was mainly made up of technical issues rather than company policy and practices. When interviewed about the journal's content, typical responses of the workers included the following:

'Management, not only at Hardie's, are at their wit's end to stop people leaving, and the things we now have and the way management is now treating us may be only a means of overcoming present difficulties. What if work becomes scarce? Will all these things be suddenly taken away?'

'Yes, I'm on bonus, but I don't know how long it will last.'

'If things take a turn for the worse, will these Committees and things disappear?'

'The firm has done a lot for men's working conditions, but will it last?' ^[30]

Workers, therefore, were concerned about security of employment and were suspicious of how long the co-operative effort of the company would continue. They were not convinced by the company propaganda disseminated through house journals. In turn, while management was happy to use the house journal as an educational tool to update workers on the technical aspect of their work, it remained guarded in terms of how much information regarding business operations should be shared with employees. A 1956 survey of 48 NSW house journals supports this conclusion. Seventy-four per cent of these house journals contained details on company products, and allocated on average 21.7 per cent of space to this subject. However, only 24 per cent of the journals included details on the future plans of the company, and allocated an average of 5.8 per cent of the journal to this issue. ^[31] Thus, in general, house journals represented a façade of consultation with the workforce regarding production and personnel decisions.

     In some cases, workers used the house journal as their own medium through which to criticise management practices. As Reekie notes, the employees of David Jones used Between Ourselves, the company house journal between 1919 and 1921, to express discontent with, for example, 'irksome house rules, dress regulations and an unequitable distribution of the yearly bonus.' ^[32] The ability of workers to speak out in this fashion was clearly determined by the editorial location of the journal.

     For other workers, employer-generated literature was perceived as 'a deliberate falsification of what "life was really like"'. ^[33] As Lyons and Taksa discovered, working people tended to identify their own interests with those of their fellow workers, and thus preferred the literature disseminated by the labour movement to house journals. Popular papers read by workers in the period 1890-1930 included Labor Daily, the Australian Worker and the Tribune. Unions often used their own journals to undermine the propaganda disseminated through company house journals. Frances notes that in 1922 the Clothing Trades Union retaliated against the welfarism of Pelaco in the union journal, warning workers not to mistake the better wages and conditions for philanthropy, 'since it paid the bosses to keep the workers contented and willing'. The union also warned that the propaganda in the Pelaco house journal was 'an insidious weapon against unionism and class-consciousness, and that workers should not feel too contented since that was the "first stage to retrogression"'. ^[34] Similarly, when The Staff was launched in 1924, the NSW ARU advised its members to return it to the postman unopened as it was a 'bucket of whitewash for the Commissioners and their satellites.' ^[35] Patmore notes that the Railway and Tramway Officers' Association's Gazette was less critical, congratulating the first issue of The Staff, but at the same time stated that the editorial gave the false impression that the Commissioners were 'philanthropists'. ^[36] Overall, the labour response largely thwarted management objectives to create a loyal and efficient workforce through the use of house journals.

In the period 1890-1965, two objectives were foremost in the minds of employers when introducing house journals. Firstly, these journals were used as an educational or communicative tool, to keep the workers informed. Secondly, house journals were designed to mould worker attitudes, and build morale and unity. The latter goal, and its role in enhancing managerial prerogative, was afforded significantly greater weight during these years. While there was a trend towards allocating more space to management communications in the post-War period, particularly in male dominated industries and department stores, the information provided on production and personnel matters remained limited. Such information largely represented a facade of consultation, and made the propaganda role of house journals even more evident. Overall, labour resistance to employer-disseminated publications and propaganda in Australia undermined the role of house journals in providing the 'continuous campaign of thought direction' needed to build a content, loyal and cooperative workforce.