The American Labor Movement

The Labor Movement of the early 20^th century was a defining point in American history. Its when we truly began to form into republic, when entrepreneurs could be successful, but not overbearing, when governments had power but not control, but above all it’s when the average citizen finally earned a right to stand up to their employer.

It wasn’t done by the individual, but by the unity of a disgruntled citizenship and a mass of people who said “no more.” Two key groups during this movement were The Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor, and without their influence the labor movement would have taken even longer than it did. Behind every organization there is a head of chief, and for the AFL this came in the form of Samuel Gompers. Founder, and leader for 38 years, his aim was for unions not to fight or be argumentative with one another, but to work together to achieve a higher cause. Every society in history has had a higher population of middle/lower/slave class than wealthy elites. Aside from the tribes so minimal and unknown, that they remain untouched today, from Egypt to Rome to the empire of England and to this day, in each nation, that statement remains the same. American laborers finally realized this, and it allowed them to form unions and use this power of numbers to make a difference.

Born and raised a poor child, within a working family, Gompers knew as well as any person what it meant to be under the shoe of big business. By the age of 25 he had already become the president of a Union of the Cigar International Company. In 1881 he was the lead activist and founder of the Federation of Organized Trade and Labor Unions, which would eventually be known as the AFL. He uses the act of collective bargaining to bring not individuals to each union, but the head of the unions to form a more powerful coalition. Why should the steel mill unions fight the iron plant unions? It only helps their employers and the buyers if they compete for it, but rather if they work together to make a suitable buyer price and a fair labor wage, it would benefit both. Each set of employees could have meetings, but being so early in the movement they didn’t have the benefit of a guaranteed job. If they joined a union in the 1880’s it would be very dangerous in terms of security within these mass monopolists who exploit the average brick-layer for whoever will do the job for less.

Gompers advocated three principles:

1. Trade Unionism – The systematic establishment of similar trades within a local area.

2. Simple Unionism – The belief that through economic rather than political gain will earn you the benefits of fair wage and welfare.

3. Political Non-Partisanship – Taking neither side of the political agenda, only use the option to endorse if a candidate or party.(4)

It’s easy to agree with his ideas, but I think it needs to be a combination of political and economical clout. Without the support of business owners, and people that can carry out (pay for) political events, campaigns, etc it would be impossible to gain ground. To say that the labor movement could have been done with only economic changes or movements, would be saying that the racial barrier of the 1960’s could have been beaten through without violence, but only words. It takes more than a single perspective or action for anything of real value to change. In 1906, Gompers made a huge case of the relationship between the union and the anti-trust law.

Employers had long sought to use the nation's new anti-trust laws as a legal basis for court-issued injunctions against strikes and boycotts. And in 1906, after nonunion employers sued the hatters' union and each individual member for triple damages in compensation for the losses they had suffered in a union boycott, Gompers concluded that the movement had to seek legislative relief. The Danbury Hatters' case, he wrote, "threatened the very existence of organized labor." It was "of paramount importance that labor unions be specifically removed from the application of anti-trust law and that injunction use be defined and regulated. (4)

After all this time of working for the labor movement, leading the way into the 20^th century, he joined Woodrow Wilson in his cabinet. From 1912 to 1920 he served the Council of National defense, where he worked to structure a labor force for the war effort, by establishing jobs for Americans and the continual establishment of stricter regulations in favor of the worker. What could have been a great achievement if it held its purpose was the International Labor Organization (ILO) after World War I.

Four years after his service with Wilson, and the end of the administration, Samuel Gompers passed away. He’s not as well known as Martin Luther King, but he did as much for the labor movement as the iconic MLK. His influence changed the appreciation for the average American worker, and gave a renewed hope in Unions and allowed for the advancement rights for the average citizen.

Another evolution within the labor movement is the Knights of Labor, founded by Uriah S. Stephens. He wasn’t quite as much of an iconic figure as we look at Gompers, but his group was still influential during the early labor movement. Although the Knights of Labor would lose most of its power by the 20^th century, one strike in 1884 against the Union Pacific Railroad, followed by the 1885 Wabash Railroad Strike, inevitably lead Jay Gould to call off his hunt against the Knights. Gould owned and operated these railroad systems, and was one of the largest tycoons of the time period. In Reading the American Past, a testimony between Jay Gould and the U.S. Senate shows his thoughts on monopolies, and the relationship between the management/ownership and the general mass and workforce.

This senate hearing in 1883 had a profound affect on the government’s knowledge and participation within the economic system concerning the personnel involved. This capitalist argument explains the dynamic of a narrow-minded business owner. At the same time, however, some of the exploited workforces were immigrants, not just from Europe but many from Asia and one thing we need to look at is how much attention the minority received. Were they afforded the same opportunity and consideration as the hard-working American man?

Blair: There has been testimony before us that the feeling generally between employers and employees throughout the country is one of hostility , especially on the part of employees toward those whom they designate as monopolists….what do you think is really the feeling as a general rule between those two classes?

Gould: I think that if left alone they would mutually regulate their relations. I think there is no disagreement between the great mass of the employees and their employers. These societies that are gotten up magnify these things and create evils which do not exist – create trouble which ought not to exist. (1; Pg. 42)

This occurred in 1883, a prime spot for Railroad investors, Western entrepreneurs, and the belief that in this nation it’s every man for himself. The belief among capitalists is that we should keep our government as far from the economy as possible, and as Gould stated, allow the corporations and the citizen control the working conditions. This case occurred after a national government study, had come to the result that employees were in fact not happy with employers and it was a broad feeling across the entire country.

These acts, this labor movement that fueled the passion of millions of Americans from the late 1800’s until the end of the Great Depression has led us to the strict yet widely acceptable rules in our institutions. Large corporations still have a great deal of influence, but Unions held their power and were able to flourish. I believe that Gompers and Stephens would be quite happy with the regulations that have been developed in modern nations. However, the lack of oversight and regulations in third-world countries means that human labor is still being exploited, and without strict International labor policies there is no possibility to end it.