Labor Strikes and Their Effects on Society:

A Common Sense Discussion of the Rights and Relations of Labor and Capital

Book excerpt

By: Charles Henry Bliss

Date: 1902

Source: Bliss, Charles Henry. Labor Strikes and Their Effects on Society: A Common Sense Discussion of the Rights and Relations of Labor and Capital. Pensacola, Fla.: C. H. Bliss, 1902.

About the Author: Charles Henry Bliss (1860–1907) wrote several social policy essays. Many of his writings are maintained with the Florida Heritage Project.

INTRODUCTION

The struggle for labor rights and organization in the United States has been long and arduous. The history of labor organizations extends back to the founding days of the nation. The organizers and rebels who orchestrated the Boston Tea Party in 1773 were members of craft organizations. These craftsmen were pre-factory laborers with specific skills. Following the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), more craftsmen organized themselves. The first U.S. strike occurred in 1794, when New York printers used the phrase "pursuit of happiness" to demand shorter working hours. Two years later, cabinetmakers went on strike, demanding better pay and shorter hours. By the 1820s, unions began to take shape, and, by demanding ten- to twelve-hour working days, took up the struggle that would shape working conditions in the twentieth century.

Battles for labor rights continued, and, as industrialization expanded the number of factories and altered the skills required by the workers, more conflicts arose. From the 1880s through World War I (1914–1918), workers organized and developed a trade union system and political groups to protect their interests and promote their political goals. Initially, these unions formed according to trade and skill because many workers felt skilled labor was held in higher respect in society. Unskilled workers also organized themselves, and they subscribed to much the same ideology that skilled workers did. Both skilled and unskilled workers viewed their labor as essential to social growth, economic expansion, and economic productivity. However, businesspeople and company owners frequently resisted the growth of labor organizations.

Business owners largely felt that they should be able to pay their workers whatever wage they deemed appropriate. Also, these business owners subscribed to the same belief that the striking New York printers of 1794 did. They argued that their rights for happiness could not, and should not, be infringed upon by the working classes. The U.S. Congress acknowledged the need for labor regulation in 1884 with the formation of the Bureau of Labor.

In 1894, a labor dispute erupted that would shape the immediate future of labor laws. The 1894 Pullman Strike by railroad workers was broken when President Grover Cleveland (1837–1908) sent in the military. President Cleveland's use of military force traced its roots to the violent rail strikes of 1877. During those strikes, several workers died or were injured, and President Rutherford B. Hayes (1822–1893) used troops to prevent further destruction of the railroad lines. The 1877 and 1894 strikes contributed to the passage of the Erdman Act of 1898, which stipulated that the Commissioner of Labor and Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission would mediate strikes. The Erdman Act had not been tested when the coal strikes of 1900 and 1902 occurred.

The Coal Strike of 1900 occurred on the eve of a presidential election, and it also traced its roots to earlier strikes in the late 1890s. During the 1890s, an economic depression reduced wages, and mine owners hired large numbers of immigrants in an attempt to keep their wage costs low, thus angering many American miners. In addition, the hazardous nature of mining led many miners to demand higher wages. Concerned about the potential impact of the strike on the impending presidential election, Republican Senator Marcus A. Hanna acted as a mediator between the mine owners and the workers. Under this political pressure, the 1900 strike was settled. Coal operators posted pay increases and established a grievance procedure, but refused to recognize the union. The six-week strike ended just a week before the election, and William McKinley (1843–1901) was re-elected by a large margin.

The 1902 Coal Strike occurred for many of the same reasons as the 1900 strike. The miners demanded better pay, better working conditions, and union recognition. The coal companies maintained that they could not meet the miners demands because prices were low and an increase in wages would destroy their profit margins. On May 12, 1902, the miners struck. Initially the maintenance crews stayed on the job in the hope that a partial crew continuing to work would encourage the mine company to settle with the strikers. However, by June 2, the maintenance crews also joined the strike. The strikers became violent, and they attacked scabs (those working during the strike), scabs' families, and private police forces and armed guards. Theodore Roosevelt stepped in to settle the strike because he believed that both labor and the business owners had rights and responsibilities to the larger community.

On October 23, 1902, the 163-day strike officially ended. There were gains and concessions on both sides. The miners received a ten percent pay increase (they had asked for twenty percent), and the work day was set at nine hours (at a time when the standard work day was ten hours). Most importantly, both sides agreed that labor disputes should be brought to arbitration to prevent future strikes.

Even though the 1902 Coal Strike was settled with both the workers and mine owners relatively happy about the outcome, the fight for unions and labor rights continued to escalate. The popular press did not always portray labor disputes in a balanced manner. Writers like Charles Henry Bliss denounced strikers for interrupting production flow, and he (and others) argued that business owners should be able to pay their workers as they saw fit.

PRIMARY SOURCE

When strikes decree that no one shall work for another unless he belongs to their particular union or organization, they practically declare themselves a trust. In this case it is a labor trust. It is not anything but a trust for it seeks to attain the same end as do other trusts and by the same means. If there is any difference, the labor trust is the worse, for it seeks to interfere with the constitutional freedom of the individual and violates the fundamental principle of civil liberty.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees to each one life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But the strike organization steps in and says that anyone may pursue happiness providing he is a member of their particular union. In other words, the union asserts its authority to be above that of the Constitution of the United States. But that is not the worst of it for he usually cannot become a member of the union without paying a stipulated price, and if anyone for any reason sees fit to "blackball" him he cannot become a member of the union at all. So if the labor trust be permitted to exist and enforce its demands the constitutional liberty of many individuals would depend upon whether any striker was inclined to blackball him or not. That is constitutional liberty with a vengeance, yet it is precisely what is proposed by the striking fraternity.

I wish to state this matter in such language that the most obtuse of labor agitators may know exactly what I mean and for that reason I shall restate the matter in other language. Under the Constitution of the United States I am free to work for anyone that I may choose and on such terms as we may agree upon. It is nobody's business but our own and no one has any right to interfere in the matter. But the labor union steps in and asserts that I shall not work for whom I choose unless I am a union man and then only on such terms as they may dictate. It further says I cannot become a member of the union without first paying a stipulated price, no matter whether I am able to pay or not, and even then I cannot become a member unless the other members are willing. In this matter the labor trust instead of being a benefit to the workman it endeavors to destroy the liberty that is vouchsafed to him by the highest law of the country.

STRIKES INTERFERE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS

Sixth. It is not the intention to enter into an elaborate discussion of property rights but to make a few observations so that the point made will be clear and indisputable. The first right that one has is the right to life. Perhaps the next right that one has is the right to the means by which to live.

The means by which to live is a property right, and who shall say that it is not as sacred as the right to life itself, for what is the value of the right to life if one be deprived of the means to live? In fact who is able to draw the line between the two rights? How can one be said to have the right to live if he be deprived of the means of subsistence? It may be taken for granted that the property rights of the individual are just as sacred as the right to life itself.

Property exists in a multitude of forms. A man's property may consist of a quantity of corn. It is his and he alone has the authority to say what shall become of it. He may eat it or store it up for the future, or may sell it, or may give it away, or may feed it to the cattle of the street, or may cast it into the river, or do anything else that he pleases with it, so long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. If a man have money he has the right to keep it, give it away, spend it, invest it or do anything else that he may choose so long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. The workingman who has a dollar has a right to spend that dollar where, when and how he pleases, or keep it or dispose of it as he pleases. It is his property and no one has any right to dictate to him what he shall do with it. Any man who has a dollar or a number of dollars has the same right.

This is a beautiful theory and a beautiful practice but the striker asserts himself to change the order of things. He assumes to dictate to a man as to how he shall run his business and spend his money. He tells the man of money who he may or may not hire and what wage he shall pay him. This is an infringement on the constitutional property rights of the individual and the reason is sufficient to demand the abolition of the strike. The striker in interfering with the property rights of the individual attacks the very foundations upon which society is built.

SIGNIFICANCE

The 1902 Coal Strike marked the first time that the federal government intervened in a labor dispute as a peacemaker instead of as a strikebreaker. During the twentieth century, more strikes occurred, but the federal government did not always act as a peacemaker in these disputes. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the American Federation of Labor's Hatters Union in the Danbury Hatters Case. The employees of Danbury hat manufacturer Dietrich Loewe struck when Loewe refused to recognize their union. Loewe hired scab workers to replace the strikers, causing the strikers to organize a secondary boycott against Loewe's products. Loewe then filed a suit against the union in compliance with the Sherman Antitrust Law of 1890. The suit alleged that the union restricted trade with its secondary boycott. The verdict in the Danbury Hatters Case levied a fine of $250,000 on the strikers, and, in 1915, the AFL organized Hatter's Day, asking its members to donate one hour of pay to raise money for the fine payment. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act officially made secondary boycotts illegal.

Other laws that helped and hindered labor continued to be enacted throughout the twentieth century. In 1916, the Adamson Act mandated the eight-hour work day for the railroads. This act proved to be an important milestone because, through a series of strikes, the eight-hour day became accepted. The Fair-Labor Standards Act of 1938 reduced the work week to forty-four hours for interstate commerce, with another reduction to forty hours after two years of employment. Most importantly for the labor movement, the National Recovery Administration recognized the right of unions to exist and to negotiate with employers. Even though the NRA did not have an enforcement mechanism, many workers saw this recognition as a significant gain.

The gains of the early and mid-twentieth century benefited labor, but the fight for fair pay has not ended. Strikes continue to occur, and legislation, like the New York State Taylor Laws, prohibits public sector employees from striking. Public sector employees are allowed to join unions and to negotiate with employers, but if they strike they are subject to a variety of penalties, including fines, prison terms, and the loss of their jobs. A recent example of a labor dispute is the December 2004 Metropolitan Transit Authority strike in New York City. This three-day strike shut down the city's subway system, and labor leader Roger Toussaint received a ten-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine for ordering the strike. As of May 2006, the MTA and its workers are still trying to devise a contract that suits the needs of all parties.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books

Sanders, Elizabeth.Roots of Reform: Farmers, Workers, and the American States, 1877–1917. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Zinn, Howard, Dana Frank, and Robin D. G. Kelley. Three Strikes: Miners, Musicians, Salesgirls, and the Fighting Spirit of Labor's Last Century. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.

Periodicals

Barrett, James R. "Americanization From the Bottom Up: Immigration and the Remaking of the Working Class in the United States, 1880–1930." Journal of American History 79 (December 1992): 996-1020.

Hanes, Christopher, and John A. James. "Wage Adjustment Under Low Inflation: Evidence from U.S. History." American Economic Review 93 (November 2003): 1414-1424.

Web sites

U.S. Department of Labor. "The Coal Strike of 1902: Turning Point in U.S. Policy." 〈http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/coalstrike.htm〉 (accessed April 28, 2006).