The late 19th Century brought wealth and progress to America. However, the debate about the "price" at which they were created in America is an important part of the historiography of American History. The steel magnate, Andrew Carnegie, is a complex figure in a 19th C. American History. A man of incredible wealth, he not only built huge steel mills with the help of cheap labor, but gave millions to support the arts and build libraries.
The issue of labor in America is an important one in understanding the so-called Gilded Age. In response to low wages and poor conditions, workers attempted to create unions in order to improve their lives. Though Carnegie wrote about the need to improve the conditions of labor, his steel plants were not generally labor friendly. In 1892, Carnegie faced a labor uprising at his Homestead Plant outside of Pittsburgh, PA. His reaction and that of his partner Henry Clay Frick was a vital element of American labor history.
Watch the video (stop at 1:32:00) and explain which side was in the right: labor or management. Did Carnegie and Frick react in a justified way? Did the union do a disservice the workers it was meant to represent? Explain your response thoroughly.
http://youtu.be/OktRUbrw_Xo?t=1h2m2s
All posed questions and in fact almost any conceivable question that relates to the respective helping or hindering in capitalist economies are entirely reliant on which side of the equation one is dealing with. The discussion of Carnegie and Frick in the latter half of the nineteenth century is one that continues to be applicable to discussions of the elite class against the masses today. The doings of both labor, or working class Americans, and management, such as the big names of corporations including Carnegie and Frick, are both understandable when thinking from their viewpoints. Workers’ riots and bringing about of destruction to respective employers machinery as a form of protest, is not the best way of bringing about their intended change of raising the minimum wage, however it is an understandable length to go to in order to break oneself free of hunger and monopoly imposed slavery. On the other side of the argument, Frick and Carnegie went to such extremes in their own business practices so as to yield the success they had worked so hard to acquire. While both sides are understandable, I tend to side more with the masses and backbone of labor as their requests were at the expense of much higher stakes. While management imposed regulation to add to their already beyond dispensable income, workers of their respective companies were clinging to their chance to eat. Carnegie and Frick’s actions to squelch uprisings and keep workers in line were excessive. While certain guidelines and limitations must be in place to keep a business successful, both men felt that the only way to keep such success was in silencing the masses. I agree with Mayor John McClucky in that many of Carnegie’s doings more closely resembled tyranny than democracy. Unions, while certainly flawed, help the working class maintain a level of equality that could never be organized without unison and collectivity. They make the exploitation of workers harder for management if that would be their intent. While Unions likely will marginally cut down on the extreme wealthy’s income, I can’t help but think that unions are beneficial to more than just the laborers they protect. A healthy and thriving middle class is instrumental to the success of communities and governments, thus unions have perks for all Americans, reaching their productive influence far beyond the communities many people credit them for exclusively helping.
ReplyDeleteEva,
DeleteThis is really well thought out. I'm impressed with you understanding of the labor issues, especially in this historical example. Carnegie is an interesting man to study and if you look beyond the Homestead events, his relationship with Frick went sour. Shortly after the events of the strike, Frick was forced, by Carnegie, to sell his shares of stock in Carnegie's Steel and refused to speak with Carnegie again.
In this traumatic episode of American industrialization, both the labor class and the capitalists strived to maximize their own interests. Interests may provide for each party an reasonable motif for their own action yet could hardly justify neither on a legal or moral ground. Early industrialization was a time period characterized by series of economic "booms and busts" that lacked effective regulations, not to mention any labor policies to protect the working class. Facing the unstable economics, it was a social norm that many capitalists chose to secure their profit by exploiting the labor. Therefore when labor union emerged and demanded higher wages, it doubtlessly posed a threat to the companies' economic interests. Hence capitalists like Carnegie and Frick, are understandable to crush such efforts, but only on an economic ground. In the exploitative wage system, the workers were often forced to work in unbearable working condition and lengthy hours, generating significant amount of wealth for the company in which they had no share. Moreover, the reality was that many workers had settled their entire family around the factory and long identified it as home. However capitalists like Frick ruthlessly treated these labor workers as manual commodities, completely dehumanized them and showed little concern for their welfare. On the other hand, although the laborers may have sufficient amount of grievances, it was unwise to resort to violence , which rather belittled their own public image into a savage, unreasonable mob and further justified the capitalists' immoral revenge. Thus due to several organized strikes that caused much social disorder, labor unions had long been associated with radicalism and faced ferocious public attacks. In fact, labor unions were once considered as illegal existence while ironically, served as the solely possible means at the moment for workers to stand up against the powerful industrial giants and argue for their rights.
ReplyDeleteAs a result, labor unions gained little success in this struggle facing the tremendous power and wealth of capitalists along with a solid support from federal government. The unions may help the workers to win a temporary battle but never would they win a war against such a powerful enemy. Only by a moral awakening that swept over every stratums of American society would there possibly generate substantial changes, just as that in anti-slavery movement. Before that it would remain a prolonged struggle of little fruits. In fact, labor unions could sometimes become a disadvantage that pushed the workers into making futile sacrifices. Under certain circumstances labor union could radicalize the workers and cause more conflicts and bloodsheds when the initial dispute could have been resolved through conversation, even a small joke, for example, in Carnegie's case. Yet labor unions were nevertheless a significant contribution to labor movement. It gave a voice to the working class and consisted an unprecedented attempt to call for labor reformations and protect workers' interests. Most importantly, it set the precedent for future labor struggles, which would eventually bring the workers legal rights and protection.
Do we, under any circumstances, have any sympathy for men like Carnegie who have to deal with an uneducated and unskilled workforce that turns to violence and embraces political and ideological radicals when faced with hardships? Or, should we always see the side of the worker who was grossly exploited by men like Frick and Carnegie in their quest for better conditions? How do we as historians tell the story of labor and management?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe both side of opinion coexisted during the time period. Although a lot of people criticized Carnegie as being a hypocrite, there was a significant amount of people who felt sympathetic for him and considered labor union a malice. As shown in the video, when a radical attempted to murder Frick in the name of working class, the public opinion turned their tide against the workers and sided with Carnegie.
DeleteThere are many other factors played out in the struggle besides management and labor. As historians, we should try to present the multiple facets of these labor struggles instead of simple black and white. For example, as you mentioned in class, Federal government was an essential role who made little intervention necessary to improve worker's condition. The government did not provide the workers a legal stand to argue for their interest and forced them to turn to radicalism. Nor did the government play a fair arbitrator in the battles. Thus after understanding all these factors, the labor strikes were more justified than the management because the workers had very little choice but only radicalism that could make their voice sounded. Limited educational background already placed them in disadvantageous position yet their harsh living condition further drove them into extremism such as direct violence. On the other hand, the corporation was far more resourceful and had more alternative choices to maintain their economic interest rather than exploiting the workers. Thus they had a greater obligation to ensure workers' welfare at their own sacrifice. Another important thing most capitalists may not realize at the moment was that the working class in fact consisted a huge consumer force. America reach its economic pinnacle when most working class achieved a higher living standard. Thus by ensuring the wages of workers, capitalists could indirectly benefit from its effect on domestic market.
Next time I will make my argument clear and more assertive.
In the midst of America’s growing industrial economy throughout the late 19th century, human rights, once again, became more of a situationally relevant issue that was more often than not compromised, than an enforcement of the Constitution. Labor workers demanded higher wages, which would generate an imbalance in the capitalist economy, while major company owners such as Henry Clay Frick refused such requests, believing that their hard work in creating the company gave them the right to manage it how they saw fit, even at the expense of the laborers’ rights. Even Andrew Carnegie, who wrote of his faith in labor and his sympathy toward laborers, when put to the test, went against his desired public appearance and refused to compromise with his workers. He built a library in Bradick as a testimony of partnership and would only agree to building one in Homestead if they agreed to give up their affiliation with their trade union so as to form a “partnership” with him. This so-called “partnership” is a synonym for cheap employment. Cheap labor was essential to building successful companies, and when workers revolted for change, cheap labor threatened to become expensive labor, thus, defeating its purpose. Carnegie and Frick should have handled their reactions with more leadership and maturity. Personally, I think the arguments of both the laborers and the management are valid. It is only natural for workers to wish to maximize their income and for employers to wish to minimize their income because ultimately, American individualism and capitalism promotes competition. And yet, this conclusion seems foreign to both the laborers and the employers. American workers lost all hope of advancing upward in society and in economics, and felt trapped in the railroad and Carnegie’s steel industry. The conditions in which they worked were oppressive, unbearable, and simply inhumane--they were virtual slaves, really. In my opinion, while the riots carried out by workers were excessively violent and tolerant to guerilla warfare, the cause they fought for was rational. In the Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge Case, Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that the state has a right to secure and improve the comfort of its people. Similarly, I believe that every person should have the right to increase their comfort as long as it is not at the expense of another. Carnegie and Frick’s motives of their treatment toward their workers would simply be described today as corporate greed, which, like Homestead activist Mayor John McCluckie added, is tyrannical and backwards. Furthermore, Carnegie and Frick decided to replace union workers with nonunion workers, depriving thousands of their jobs, and every person should be entitled to be employed just as every person should be entitled to be educated. It was outrageous that America’s largest steel producer would eliminate America’s largest labor union. The larger issue at hand then, is the superiority of law versus mob violence. In cases such as the French Revolution, mob violence was clearly effective, however this is not always the case, nor is it usually the case. I do think that the labor union during the Homestead Steel Strike in 1892 did a disservice to the workers it was meant to represent, however, keeping in mind the state of being of which the rioters encompassed--starving, poor, angry--I find their reactions reasonable, especially because no other way would be effective since the law most often sided with management. Still, the riots were extreme and out of hand, and I don’t believe the labor union did the most they could to limit the brutality they inflicted. I feel that it caused more tension between labor and employer and made the hope of ever negotiating nearly impossible. At the same time, they were disorganized and unprofessional, but they were necessary. Furthermore, unions were supposed to secure and protect the jobs of those in the union, while instead, they promoted violence, which would serve as a model to other American laborers.
ReplyDeleteMany points in this post to contemplate. Specifically, did Carnegie and Frick have an obligation to pay workers a fair wage if they weren't compelled to do so? What is a fair wage? Who/what should serve as support for the workers against the workers? Could things have turned out differently if the workers weren't infiltrated by anarchists and political radicals? These are essential questions that we need to think about as we study labor/management issues. This response makes us think of all these things.
DeleteThe key to a working relationship between the employers and laborers is either both sides come together to agreeable terms, or one side must crush the other into submission. Each side often had competing agendas that made it difficult for a win-win solution to happen. Andrew Carnagie built his empire off of three things: high speed efficency, cost savings, and high volume production. On the other hand, the laborers or the unions wanted liveable wages and lower work hours. The situation boils down to two sides with very different concerns. The workers want to be able to live comfortably without worrying about basic necessities, while the owners worry about competing with the competition and coming out on top. Coupled with a laizse faire government that refuses to mediate the conflicts that arise, the two side obviously clash violently with each other. Now which side is right? I believe the workers were in the right. They have the right to demand higher wages, and unionize. It is often said that higher costs are passed down to the consumer or the buyer, which is mostly true because companies have to keep profits up in order keep investors happy. But if Carnagie believed that he was a man of the people, he would have given higher wages to his workers from his own paycheck. He has a virtually monopoly in the steel industry, and opulent wealth, so a hit in finances, although most definetly significant, could be absorbed, while maintaining a respectable profit. Was Frick and Carnigie justified in their actions? I believe so. With government unwilling to mediate the strikes, the union workers could do almost anything, but so could Carnigie. If the workforce decides to unionize, they risk their jobs. Carnigie simply waited them out, while the workers struggled to get by without money. The owners themselves after all need something to negoiate with the unions. Frick hired Pinkerton Guards to protect the Homestead Mill. It is totally legal to protect property, but an escalation of violence brought an unfortunate end to the ordeal. In the end, the unions lost to Carnigie, but they were not a disservice to the workers. They were fighting to fix problems that were glaringly apparent in the workplace and gave the laborers an oppurtunity to get what they deserved.
ReplyDeleteIt's spelled Carnegie.
DeleteOn the issue of Andrew Carnegie and HC Frick versus the labor union, there is no entirely correct side to choose. On one end of the spectrum there is Andrew Carnegie who desires to profit while seemingly appear to be a man of the people, which is why he hired HC Frick. Clearly, Carnegie was so worried about his image that as a result, he had to hire someone extreme, such as Frick, to do the dirty work of firing workers and rejecting unions for him. For the reason that Carnegie was, as the video called him, “a sneak,” numerous citizens and laborers had no respect for him. Moreover, the laborers deserve the right to, as the Mayor of Homestead John McClucky stated; “live comfortably” off of their paycheck. This is an important and valid point, made by McClucky, but not the only one. When the Mayor correctly talks about the dictatorship run by Andrew Carnegie, he introduces an extremely interesting and controversial topic. This polarizing subject was at the root of all union disputes during the Gilded Age from 1870 – 1914, whether it was Carnegie or Rockefeller. Now, to answer the questions specifically, I am on the side of the laborers. Although I can understand the thought that Carnegie wants to be successful, he did not have the right to pay the workers as little as he did. In addition, neither Carnegie nor Frick acts can be justified because they brought war to a city, which was only trying to be paid a reasonable amount for the hard labor they were performing. Lastly, in this particular case, the union hurt the workers because it did not cater individually to the needs and desires of specific workers. Clearly, Carnegie and Frick were in the wrong in this situation because none of their acts could have been fully justified.
ReplyDeleteThe initial purpose for labor unions was not beneficial to the workers around the time of Carnegie’s steel plant. Workers did not foresee economic independence in their lives, which was limiting because it forced them to rely on those above them. The unions protected unskilled workers, who reacted violently when they felt their jobs were at risk. It did not help that to Carnegie, Frick, and other entrepreneurs, they were essentially “disposable” because they were immigrants and had no particular strengths in the steelmaking business. Carnegie wanted his reputation to be that of the “benevolent employer” and hiring Frick allowed him to present himself as that, while Frick was left to carry out the executive tasks that did not align with Carnegie’s vision for himself.
ReplyDeleteFrick’s job included firing workers who had gone on strike against wages. These workers, however, lost their jobs by from being in a union and going on strike. It is true that their wages left them very little opportunity for social mobility, but giving away their money to unions that eventually led them to unemployment did not help the laborers because their unions were not accomplishing anything on their behalf. I believe there should be a voice advocating for workers’ rights, and I do not think labor unions then and now are very similar. I think labor unions currently, even though they are not as popular, are less about creating a dependency and more about advocacy. I think the labor side's actions were more defendable because they truly were dependent on those above them. Carnegie's monopoly over the steel industry and various parts of the country created a system in which his employees were paying him in many different ways (banks, steel, goods) whether or not they were aware. This intense capitalism is almost tyranny because of how Carnegie is gathering so much profit off of the same group of people.
America attracts immigrants from various regions of the globe because of the American Dream, which gives people the hope, right, and opportunity to build a new life; to try to become successful as they can be. Carnegie and Frick came to become two of the most powerful and wealthiest men in the nation, building wealth and power through growing industry in America. They were able to build and maintain their empire by exploiting the rights of the lower and middle class workers that were denied proper rights and wages. Unlike Frick, who was unsympathetic to the plight of laborers from the start, Carnegie had written about championing the rights of workers to organise into unions and had proposed the idea that “thou shalt not take thy neighbor’s job”. Carnegie had even forced Frick to retreat from his hardline stance on labor, and seemed to be genuinely sympathetic to the demands of the laborers and managed to settle many of the issues and disputes without violence; however he was still determined to get to the top. He built a library in Bradick, Pennsylvania and would only build one in Homestead if the workers agreed to “partner” with him at the cost of their affiliation with the union. Carnegie’s ambition for success caused him to disregard his previous advocation of the rights of workers, and once again enforced cheap and unfair employment.
ReplyDeleteAlthough large corporations and industries have the right to expand their power and wealth to whatever amount they can amass, they do so at the expense of the majority of the population comprised of middle and lower class workers. Both parties are at fault in the conflict, as both brought turned to violence, the workers with the riots and strikes, and Frick with the Pinkertons and unjust treatment of the workers. I believe that there needs to be compromise between the wealthy and the poor, requiring each side to give up some things in order to create a prosperous and healthy society. The nation cannot survive with the broad range of social and economic differences if each side of the spectrum is not willing to do their part to benefit each other. The poor have an obligation to work labor positions too, but the rich must help to protect their rights stated by John McClucky that all american workers should be entitled to a job, a livelihood, and a sufficiency of means to live comfortably. It is true that the poor have the short end of the stick, and it is the obligation of the upper class to commit to aiding the lower and middle classes which make up the majority of the population of America, to prevent them from falling too low and bringing the whole country down with them.
In the war waged against Carnegie and Frick by the union regarding labor union, it is impossible to say who was right seeing as there were many groups involved who did not always agree. The decision to form a union could not have been a better one, without it who knows how much longer labor workers would have been forced to work in such horrid facilities. While Carnegie’s memoirs included a version of him that settled disputes through talking, his reaction to the union included starving workers into submission, ignoring his ideals and doing whatever it took to get to the top. This twisted view of doing what it took to succeed only led to harm, some would say Carnegie and Frick pushed the workers to their breaking points. Bribing his workers to give up on a union by donating a library and athletic facilities is not be a selling point. His speech on how everyone had to give for the greater good was fabricated and hypocritical at best. When put to the test his desire for cheap labor was more important than the rights of the workers. Their immigrant status was like a sign that read ‘will work for next to nothing.’ Cheap unskilled labor was easy to find among immigrants, however these people also had families to feed so can you really blame them for trying to secure a place amongst society as equals? Frick’s treatment of labor workers is personally responsible to the fights, riots, and general violence that arose among the workers. Burning railways and setting equipment on fire is severe, however having not been there I can not pretend that I was there nor did I experience the personal hell that these people were put through. However their actions did spread the concept of violence as a means of being heard which wasn’t the purpose of unions. The purpose of unions was to fight, peacefully, for the rights of labor workers in order to be treated fairly. This being said however, despite losing the war I think the labor workers started an idea that could not be completely erased and still remains to be a problem today. The only way that this nation can overcome a problem such as this is by recognizing everyone as equal no matter your race, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc. We as humans tend to shy away from anyone that may be different because we view them as threatening to our idealist lifestyle. In the end I think desperation and fear were the causes of the Gilded Age. Carnegie and Frick’s desperation to succeed and the laborers fear for the lives and desperation to be treated as equals rather than animals.
ReplyDeleteTrying to decide which side was in the right is extremely difficult especially being that this took place in a time that is hard to relate to. This was a time when the rights and wages of the workers were not protected. In order to chose a side, it is important to look at the situation from both perspectives, which both seem understandable. From the management point of view, it is understood that there are to be guidelines put in place in order for your business to succeed, but the extreme measures both Carnegie and Frick went to for this was excessive. From the laborers point of view, it is understood that they would want to riot and challenge management in order for their rights to be acknowledged and for the minimum wage to be raised, but there is a better way to do this than protesting. To get back to the main question, it is still very difficult to chose who was right because though I feel great sympathy for the workers, as I stated earlier this was a different time period and it is hard to decide whether major corporations would still be taking advantage of workers today if labor laws were not being enforced.Despite this, I do still seem to side with the laborers because they have the right to want higher wages and better working conditions. Unions, in bringing the workers together, helped to avoid the misuse of the workers by management. Yes Carnegie was a businessman and he wanted to advance his business forward as much as he possibly could, but if he truly loved the people as he said, he would have come to the aid of them rather than being a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteIn order to try and pick a correct side, both need to be examined closely though the lens of that time. Carnegie, one of the, if not the, wealthiest and most influential man in the world, built his industry off of the work of the underpaid common man, a practice that today is seen as cruel and unforgivable. During the time, however, this was not entirely uncommon, as the common man was often synonymous with the poor man, and a poor man will do almost any labor. Just like the other magnates of his time, Carnegie exploited the workers in order to rise to power in the steel industry. At the time, this was not seen as unusual at all by fellow business managers. Therefore, Frick's outright hostile response to the common, replaceable man was viewed as relatively normal in the eyes of a twentieth century businessman. From the worker's perspective, however, they were on the brink of a revolution, a road paved by unions and wage laws. To get there though, they had to put up a fight somewhere and decide to picket that place until they got what they wanted. Undoubtedly, they understood that the management would not tolerate this kind of behavior, so the understood they would have to weather a fight. It is therefore no surprise that outright hostility was launched towards the unions and the common workers-they knew what they were entering into, and they should have expected what was coming. Carnegie and his associates, like Frick, were merely trying to defend the system that had brought them into power, much like the South in slavery. They were simply trying to uphold their way of life because they did not know anything else. The unions eventually solved this problem because they created factions that workers could unite with against the corporations, and additionally though these unions, they could negotiate peacefully.
ReplyDeleteAs the rise of capitalism occurred within the prominent years of the Gilded Age, tensions between the working class and the management heads grew to unprecedented heights. The labor class at the time, faced unacceptable conditions within the workplace alongside minuscule wages. Naturally, the labor force as a whole wanted to change these unfortunate circumstances for the better. However, as an entrepreneur and a frugal business owner, Andrew Carnegie opposed changes to the greatly successful formula he created and implemented in his steel factories.The two forces of labor and management clashed in a struggle power struggle that occurred Homestead Plant in 1892. This labor rising, originating from general manager Henry Frick's objective to slash wages to counteract declining revenue from the plant, was a justified use of labor unions as a force to fight against oppressive managers. However, the main goal for labor unions, to protect the common worker, was not achieved for workers partook in such a revolt that would cost them their jobs and even lives. When analyzing the uprising from the perspective of the management, the actions made by Frick and Carnegie seemed severe yet rational. Frick's attempt to cut the already low wages for the workers seems harsh toward the many employees of Carnegie, yet it proved to be necessary for the company in such a competitive rising market. On the other hand, the decision for the labor union leaders to enact an uprising also seemed like a natural outcome. They believed that the conditions and the wage were already significantly unsatisfactory, and to exacerbate their conditions even more was deemed as a notion with malevolent intentions. Due to the fact that workers were treated as dispensable commodities, the labor union worked to fight as a unified power against the financial leaders of the Carnegie Company. But due to an overwhelming amount of opposing power, and overall lack of organization within the uprising, the labor workers lost the battle for power without a compromise in their favor. As a result, many workers lost their jobs and some lost their lives. An even bigger blow manifested in Carnegie and Frick's success of undermining the labor unions even further after the strike. In conclusion, it is clear that pleasing both sides of the company, in both the laborers and the management, is a difficult task to accomplish. However, Carnegie should have realized that laborers that are content with the conditions and wages prove to maximize the efficiency of the industry involved. On the other hand, the Homestead workers should have realized that labor unions are intended as political leverage against companies, and using the unions to carry out and organize violence can only lead to demise. In the end, both sides acted wrongfully within the events that unfolded at the Homestead Plant. However Carnegie put forward an attempt to reconcile the losses he faced by giving back millions to the surrounding communities and by helping usher in a new modern industrial era.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict between management and employee during the late 19th century was a layered and complex one. While workers were mistreated and given no security to their job, there was no precedent for factory owners to provide benefits such as paid leave for injury, or for the worker to keep their job and resume work after healing. Most injured factory workers would be fired and replaced, as cheap unskilled labor was in high supply given the recent immigrants. The first labor union, the Knights of Labor, was designed to protect unskilled laborers from acts such as these, however violent outbursts would often appear, especially in the factories run by Henry Clay Frick, who ran a managerial position for Andrew Carnegie in the steel factories. The workers were treated like dirt, and would very often respond in a very confrontational manner. Huge riots would break out in the factories, and it was Frick's job to keep the workers complacent and efficient. The Knights of Labor would attempt to nullify the violence and settle differences peacefully, however they often failed. That is not to say that the protests themselves were misplaced, for the people of the unskilled workforce were often in near slavery conditions, forced to work most hours of the day just to feed their family scraps. In this aspect, the workers were very much fighting for the right thing, and the corporate heads were very much the oppressors. However giving many new jobs did in fact raise many out from under the poverty line. The children could go to school, there was enough money for meager meals, and as long as both parents worked, they could afford to keep their home. However, as stated earlier, if there was an injury, even if it was caused by the job conditions themselves, the company could not be held liable, and did not have to pay compensation. This would leave families to starve until another job could be found. While Carnegie did later see the error of his methods, his attempt at giving back to the people his company hurt did not in fact relate to them directly. Because most of his workers were illiterate or barely literate, the fact that he gave a library seems like a half-hearted gift. Through all this though, the incredible advancements made by companies like Carnegie Steel and others of that elk are astounding, and we wouldn't be where we are today technologically if it weren't for them.
ReplyDelete