Labor disputes derive their form and dynamic impetus from the manifold grievances which cause them; any fruitful effort to minimize industrial conflict must be grounded on an understanding of the basic psychological character of grievances. Labor disputes are not comprehensible if judged by standards or norms of behavior usually applied to conflicts between groups contending only for monetary stakes. Efforts to convince workers that a contemplated strike for a wage increase, though it may be ultimately successful in terms of more cents per hour, should not be called because it will take months to make up the lost earnings, have no effect upon them. This is so because the real sources of the propulsive forces of the conflict are not disclosed by such an analysis. Men will undergo great privations and financial loss to overcome oppression. The goals in such a conflict frequently transcend material considerations. In modern industrial disputes much more is at issue than a wage increase even when a wage increase is the declared issue. The grievances which stir workers to take dramatic action are manifestations of profound resentment against a system of industrial organization which not only fails to yield economic security but, more importantly, denies the primacy of the individual in favor of that of the machine, negates his worth, diminishes his self-esteem and corrodes his personality. Modern industry, preoccupied with mass production techniques, has concentrated upon creating abundance at lower unit costs. In its single-minded devotion to this objective it has excluded the workers from its field of vision except in so far as they service the tools of production. Eager to use machines in place of men, management has displayed callous indifference to the impacts of technological advances upon the men and their families. In pursuit of improved methods, skills have been scientifically analyzed and broken down to their simplest elements. The skilled mechanic has been disjointed, as it were, and each element of the job assigned as a single task to different workers, each of whom is required to conform to the monotonous rhythm of the machine. This steady erosion of skill has reduced the worker to progressively less important roles in the productive process, making him more easily replaceable until a new piece of equipment may dispense with him entirely. Management has exhibited little evidence of concern that this process of splitting