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.

Chekhov

Anton Chekhov began his writing career with short stories and anecdotes, and his first two attempts at plays would earn him no points in literary history. It wasn't until The Seagull was revived in 1898 by Constantine Stanislavsky that Chekhov would earn the reputation of brilliant playwright. The collaboration between the writer and producer on The Seagull would represent the initial bond of an extended and successful professional relationship.

Chekhov began his career through family hardship and the need for success. Born and raised in Russia, his father was a grocer, but after his business went under and he was left with an enormous debt on an unfinished house, he fled to Moscow where Anton's two elder brothers attended school. His mother and two younger sisters remained with Anton for a short while before they too left for Moscow to join his father and brothers in 1876. He sold what remaining possessions the family had and worked as a sketch artist and a private tutor to pay for his education. Any money left over he sent to his family in Moscow. After finishing grammar school, Chekhov moved on to Moscow University in 1879 where he attended the medical program. During the 1880's he worked for different literary publications and as a physician. He had become one of Russia's most distinct young writers, and wrote his first play in 1887 called Ivanov in only two weeks. It wasn't until 1894 that Anton would actually sit down and begin his first major play, The Seagull.

Though Chekhov had written two plays before, The Seagull was by far his biggest undertaking. He was living in a lodge he had recently built in a secluded orchard, where he spent a great deal of time connecting with nature and taking an active role in agriculture. It was initially shown in 1896, at the Alexandrinsky Theatre in St. Petersberg and received the worst reception possible. The audience booed the players off-stage, but captivated one man named Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, a Russian theatre director. After he had seen the show, he persuaded his creative business partner, Constantine Stanislovsky to direct the play. If not for Danchenko, it is very possible Chekhov would have never written another play, as he had denounced the theatre after the initial failure of The Seagull. The success of their collaboration would lead to several others productions, including Uncle Vanya, The Cherry Orchard, and Three Sisters. But The Seagull was step one.

In 1897 Chekhov was diagnosed with tuberculosis, and relocated to Yalta where he built a grand villa for himself, his mother, and his sisters. He reluctantly agreed to meet with Stanislovsky, who at the time was a young actor and director in need of a dramatic play for the opening of the Moscow Art Theatre. Anton remained in Yalta while the production took place December 1898, where it achieved phenomenal success. As one reviewer said, "like an exploding bomb, a sudden deafening eruption broke out."

Although the production received success from both critics and the populous, it was because of Stanislavsky's detail to tragedy rather than Chekhov's taste for humor that led to widespread acclaim. The producer and writer didn't seem to agree on the style or meaning of the plays, but this clash of style melded to form the "blockbuster" theatre performances of the time in Russia. Chekhov focused his writing on the inner thoughts and feelings of his characters, who were usually quite average and based off people he knew and experiences he had heard. He was a satirist in much of his work, never making political gestures but always making social comments. He wrote The Seagull after he had taken a journey to a penal colony in Northern Japan and interviewed 160 prisoners a day. With his expansive understanding of human emotion and interaction it allowed what were formerly short narratives, to be turned into compelling and dramatic plays. This type of content lends itself to a dark and tragic form of plot line, but Chekhov used the form of comedy to display these issues . His intention was to force people to working class to ask themselves "Am I happy with my life?" and he knew the resounding answer would be no. Russia was still essentially in serfdom, and the power was concentrated to the Czar and nobleman.

"All I wanted was to say honestly to people: 'Have a look at yourselves and see how bad and dreary your lives are!' The important thing is that people should realize that, for when they do, they will most certainly create another and better life for themselves. I will not live to see it, but I know that it will be quite different, quite unlike our present life. And so long as this different life does not exist, I shall go on saying to people again and again: 'Please, understand that your life is bad and dreary!"

Chekhov was more than aware of the lifestyle the serf led, considering his grandfather was a serf and he himself was raised extremely poor. He was also aware that they had the ability to change it, and if they seriously examined their situation he thought they might.

Stanislavsky's new form of method acting allowed the players to remove themselves from the exact lines of the play and do controlled improvisation, although it required an understanding of the subtext within the play. The main idea behind his method is that the actor needs to be believable rather than recognized or understood. One part of his method used the idea of "emotional memory", in which the actor would remember something joyful in order to act happy, or something scary in order to act fearful. His method evolved when he added the idea of "physical entries" which are essentially movements or actions that a certain player would do so that it becomes a part of his character, and therefore bridges the gap between the actor and the audience.

Although the Chekhov and Stanislavsky may not have seen eye to eye, I believe each of their methods in conjunction produced an evolution in acting. How could Chekhov expect the classic for of acting to have his introverted scenes and idea expressed outwardly without some sort of emotional acting? You may recognize the actor’s motions, and you may understand what he is saying, but without a certain tone and psychological depth from the line to the actor, the subtle messages would not be heard. Stanislavsky on the other hand, needed an intense, vibrant, aggressive play to get his innovative theater off the ground and The Seagull offered a great opportunity to show the difference method acting could have. The tragedy Stanislavsky brought out was not an intention of Chekhov, but it created an effective show that captivated the audience.

Anton Chekov would die in 1904, but before his death he would write fourteen plays; four of which were produced with Stanislavsky and are considered Russia's finest theatrical offerings. His short stories are world renown and his work as a doctor and local philanthropist have been dwarfed by his achievements as a writer. Chekhov could not have been as successful with his plays if he did not have the Stanislavsky method or the Moscow Theatre. It is only in coalition and conjunction that these two talents were able to form a beautiful time period of Russian theatre never seen before.