Trade Unions and Labour Rights Flashcards
Issues facing TU
right for union to exist
recognition of unions
involvement of unions in negotiation over pay and working conditions
establishment of systems for mediation
freedom of workers to withdraw their labour w/o fear of punishment
How was progress for TU?
not continuous
periods where improvements were limited therefore employers and often the gov were reluctant to support unionisation
Factors influencing progress
eco-change
growth of capitalism
amount of immigration
Position of TU at start of period
rights = dependent on what workers could negotiate with employers
no requirment for employers to recognise let alone negotiate therefore workers had no representation or protection from their employers
-> could be exploited
Position of TU at end of period
won right to join unions (but some emps had been able to create workplaces where unions were forbidden - forced to accept fall in wages and fear of job loss)
right to collective bargaining but limited in practice (as w/ join a union)
w/o union rep workers = weak position to improve rights but did not want to risk confrontation
right to withdraw labour and strike but limited some emps
Extent of rights by WW1 (pos)
position improved leading to outbreak -> reflected by growth in UN membership
Extent of rights but WW1 (neg)
initial gains = limited to white, male workers and by 1914 no guarantee of perm gains
unions in 1865 = only skilled workers in craft industries but the USA = undergoing a period of rapid industrialisation meaning many of the new unskilled workers = excluded from unions (therefore no rep/protection)
employers hired unskilled workes under contracts rather than perm employment so could be laid off when less demand for work
limited safety precautions in factories -> large no of incidents and emp not introduce measures because it would reduce profits through greater supervision - injury = risk employee had to take (courts)
Unions in the late 19th century (pos)
increasing industrialisation -> increase in no of unions (Knights of Labor - KOL and American Fed of Labor - AFL)
KOL: 1881 - 20,000 -> 1886 - 700,000 (suggests successful strike action = crucial to growth)
un m.ship across USA had growth to over 2 million
uns had begun to put pressure on candidates in elections to support workers rights
Unions in the late 19th century (neg)
membership decline of KOL to 100,000 by 1890 and rep collapsed as a result of violence of Haymarket Affair
1905: Industrial Workers of the World less effective due to violence/militancy ; 100,000 by 1923 but declined thereafter
divisions in workforce affected un m.ship -> arrival of AA workers after abolition of slavery ; most accepted lower pay - employers exploited this by laying off whites and replacing with AA ; exacerbated by arrival of European/Asian immigrants
-> existing unions saw this as a sig challenge and refused to allow them to join which further limited size of unions and their ability to exert pressure on emps -> divided workforce = easier to exploit
progress further weakened by 2 other strikes
- Homestead Strike 1892 - virtually bankrupted Amalagamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers and resulted in a decline in union mship (1891 24,000 - 1909 6300)
- Pullman Strike - developed from emps refusal to recognise rights of workers to use collectibe bargaining and showed difficulties in gaining un recognition
-appears that by outbreak, little achieved in terms of UN rights
Factors suggesting position of labour = no stronger than in 1865
uns represented only 20% of non-agricultural workforce
many industrys did not have uns (e.g steel/car manufacturing)
many uns = not legally recognised therefore lacked real power over decisions
wks divided by ethnicity, gender, skill level - divisions often exploited
gains limited to white skilled workers
Rights during WW1 and inter years
WW1, New Deal, WW2 = some progress due to necessity than willingness
WW1
- pos of workers improved
- factory owners saw an increased demand for their products therefore more opp to increase profits ; more willing to be conciliatory towards their wks e.g textiles for uniforms, steel for weapons
- to ensure that protection = maintained, gov recognise and negotiated with uns through National War Labor Board (NWLB)
- -> resulted in working hours limited to 8 in return for agreeing to a no-strike policy
The boom of the 1920s - positive
eco boom - unemp decline
employees offered benefits e.g reduction in working hours, pensions, insurance
porters appointed Randolph to lead their counter-campaign, set up the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (BSCP) Union
by 1934, change in law under Roosevelt w/ passing of Railway Labor Act, meant that the BSCP could claim right to represent porters
Randolph demanded that the National Mediation Board offically declared the BSCP as the Porter’s rep
BSCP defeated company un in elections to decide who should rep workers
-> in 1935 finally gained recog and Pullman began to negotiating within a year the un had enrolled 51% of all porters
The boom of the 1920s - negative
development of welfare capitalism (offered benefits in return for est of unions under direction of employer) = usually in return for no strike agreements and abandoning right to negotiate wages as emp feared that wks would take advantage of the low rates of unemployment to demand more money
some indiv company unions set up - wks lost independence and sometimes forced to sign yellow-dog contracts (agree not to join un)
many emp refused to recog uns
-> e.g Henry Ford - tight control over wk force ; only in 1941 did he recog un for collective bargaining
struggle for recog evident in Pullman Company. Employed many AA porters in poor conditions who relied on tips for income and were denied promotion
-> PC established own un and banned BSCP meetings (who had not gained recog by 1928)
The Great Depression and its impact on rights
living standard improvements ened
emp could exploit weak pos of wks who feared losing their jobs during period of high unemp
tough action against strikers during period - police or own strike breakers
un mship fell as being unable to strike undermined their pos and un strength
Norris - La Guardia Act
1932
banned yellow-dog contracts
barred fed courts from issuing injunctions against non-violent labour disputes
New Deal Positives for rights
high point in rights - wide range of legislation
National Industry Recovery Act (NIRA) 1932
-> encouraged firms to agree to codes of practice to imp hours, wages, un rights (major step forward)
National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) 1935
-> step forward
-> established National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
increase in no of unionised workers - increase power
sit-in strike in 1936 led to recog of United Automobile Worker’s Union and then Steel Workers Organizing Committe - recog in 1937
Fair Labor Standards Act 1939
-> minimum wage
pos = stronger than before WW1
National Labor Relations Board
could negotiate on behalf of workers and prevent companies from using own uns
looked into accusations of unfair labour practices and reached judgement on issues brought before it
-> right to elect own rep
-> declared constitutional
-> right to join own un
-> using spies against un = banned
-> reorganised role of un unlike any other leg (rapid expansion of un mship from 3.7 mil 1933 to 9 mil 1938)
New Deal negatives
NIRA limited as not all emps signed code (e.g Ford) - declared unconstitutional by SC - gains reversed
improvements only benfitted some workers
unskilled wks - no rights
lower end of pay scale, most in need of protection, did not benefit
ethnic minorities v vulnerable
women paid less
NLRA did not give agricultural workers right to join union
-> attempts to improve conditions wait until 1960s
WW2 impact on rights
imp in pos of labour continued bc wrks = essential to war prod
wages increased by 70% -> strong pos
unemp fell - labour shortage
mship from 9 mil (1938) to 15 mil (1945)
power & pos of un increased when compared to 1918 (high point?)
uns gained recog
laws recog.d labour rights
mship soared giving wks more influential voice in politics
balance of power btween wks and emp moved in favour of wks
(but many emp unwilling to accept change)
post-WW2 period positives
individual victories
General Motors 1948
- negotiated pay agreement linked to living cost
post-WW2 negatives
large no of strikes - decline in pos of uns
politcians believed uns = too powerful
Taft-Harley Act 1947
eco changes following WW2 threatened to undermine pos of wks - growth in no of white collar wks (prof, tech, clerical) and sub dec in no of blue-collar wks (manual) meant fewer wks -> uns
mship fell 1945-50 (many new jobs in gov with no-stike agreement)
many wks = better off (less interested in un activity)
Taft Harley Act 1947
limited power of uns (prevented from running closed shop)
-> backwards move
prohibbited un from engaging in sev “unfair labour practices”
-> jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, closed shop, secondary boycotts
allowed states to pass right-to-work laws banning union shops
congress overode Truman’s veto to pass act
The 1960s - positive
Kennedy : 1963 Equal Pay Act - men & women ‘equal pay for equal work’
Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ policy benefitted those in poverty
1964 Economic Opp Act: inc training opp
Age Discrimination Act 1968: protected those over 40 y/o
Merger of AFL with CIO -> AFL-CIO in 1955 - wks benefitted, brought together 85% of un members & gave movement power/influ. 16 million member - bargain over conditions and wages, negotiate over contract cond, paid holidays and unemp insurance, gain med/dental insurance and pension
right to join a un not been poss century earlier, now established
uns collaborated with emps - confrontations that had characterised earlier period not been pos century earlier appeared to be in decline
wks given many benefits
The 1960s - negative
pos for many AA = little imp, worsened due to changes in industry
demand for skilled/tech adv workers disadvantaged many AA -> lack education as most lived in poverty w/ poor school (diff to WA)
eco change threatened pos of wks
wks had to agree to no-strike agreement
Cesar Chavez - pos
attempts made to imp pos of farmworkers
gained from merger of Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC) w/ National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) founded by CC
-> became United Farm Workers (UFW) Union in 1972
Chavez = non-violent; turned struggle of farmers into moral cause which won national sympathy
tactics forced growers to recog UFW as bargaining org for field wks in Cali
early 70s UFW org strikes/boycott inc Salad Bowl Strike - largest farmworker strike in US history -> won increased wages for lettuce/grape wks
series of fasts to promote non-violence and in response to leg passed in Arizona prohibitting boycotts/strikes
1975 California Agricultural Labor Relations Act est the Cali Agr Rel Board to oversee coll barg for farm labourers
Cesar Chavez - negative
farmworkers had not gained from the benfits of org labour in industry
involved in struggle to limit immigration - believed it undermined pos of wks born in USA while exploiting immigrants
late 1960 s saw a decline in un mship not as result of failure of uns to protect wks but due to tech changes resulting in a more skilled wkforce that did not look to uns to protect their pos
End of period - pos
org labour = stronger pos than start of 1865
un power reduced but wks = better pos than 1865
- join un (non-unionised firms)
- collective bargaining (threat unemp)
- strike (no-strike clauses)
- pos of female wks improve
End of period - negatives
power/imp of un = reduced compared w/ 1960s & 30s
falling un mship until 1992
decline in un mship = reflection of continued change in structure of wkforce/eco but also due to events such as PATCO strike and changing attitudes
no of strikes reduced from 381 (1970) to 44 (1990) - no. involved red from 6477 to 4204
lack of public support for air traffic controllers actions in PATCO strike, discouraged other strikes and show decline in un influence/power
early 1980s and 1990s, uns = under attack from all sides
gov and emps had issues w/ uns
divisions w/in un movement w/ others unwilling to support PATCO air traffic controls due to perception as well paid -> weakened pos
decline in size of factories/business -> diff to org wks; impacted on un recruitment
decline in un mship (1970 = 19.3 mil; 1990 = 16.7 mil) further exacerbate by continued divisions by emps of generous welfare packages therefore wks saw little to be gained froms uns
growth in non-un firms emps allowed to ignore law/deny rights - increase trend when emps discovered they could effectvely get away w/ it
NLRB less willing to defend un rights resulting in emp interests taking presendence over wks (emp now in stronger pos than WW2)
un power reduced
What happened to the economy during the period?
fluctuated widely
eco downturns such as Great Depression as well as growth e.g Gilded Age -> great impact on pos of uns/labour rights
Gilded Age 1870-90
periods of rapid eco growth, esp booming N+W states
industries such as railways, mining, iron, steel and financial sector grew
wks gained from high wages -> attracted large no of imms from Europe
-> many lived in poverty and did not benefit from gains
Labour rights during periods of industrial growth and economic change - positive
employees were often in a stronger pos than in times of eco downturn
growing eco may have allowed labour org to increase pressure on emps at first for un recog then for better pay/conditions
industry growth imp wks conditions
Labour rights during periods of industrial growth and economic change - negative
growth in eco usually resulted in an increased demand for wks but this did not always result in actual deviation of un rights
Great Dep and 1930s fear of being unemp did not always result in gain
not always case in later part, the improvements in living cond meant they were less interested in un activity
Skilled and unskilled wks in 19th century
wks org = able to use growth in no of indus workers from 885,000 to 3.2 million from 1860-1900 to win some concessions from emps
eco growth resulted in increased demand for uns resulting in formation of KOL in 1869, AFL in 1886 and IWotW in 1905
creation of large no of unskilled wks due to development of mass prod and growth in heavy industry
-> resulted in new wave of wks who wanted rep and protection
progress in obtaining rights = slow but un mship grew from 500,000 @ end of 19th century to 2.5 mil in 1915 and 5 mil by 1920
-> sheer no of wks inc press on emps to recog uns but much still depended on fluctuations in eco
The 1920s - industrial growth and eco change
eco boom allowed some of this progress to continue
to meet a growing demand for new goods, e.g cars, not only were more wks taken on but real wages increased
inc demand for wks and low level of unemp forced some emps to take conciliatory action, either in form of un recog or through welfare capitalism
some gains made w/ emps like Henry Ford (cut wking day to 8hrs, doubled daily wages to $5 and introduce profit sharing
BUT welfare capitalism limtied rights of wks
The 1950s - growth and eco change (positive)
development of 50s = sim to 20s
period of prosperity resulted in rapid improvement in eco pos wks, avg income by end of 50s = 35% increaseed than end of WW2
SoL rose
increased prosperity
sig wage increase
The 1950s (negative)
increase in SoL not always reflected in improvement rights
many wks less likely to support uns and risk their gains through industrial action
trend continued into 70s w/ those involved in less concern for wks orgs
Did industrial growth and eco change hinder labour and un rights?
start of period inc in mass prod was main factor in limiting un rights
whereas after WW2 it was growth in white-collar emo w/ dev of high tech/service industry that had largest composit/ nature of wkforce had limiting impact @ start
Growth or depression?
periods of depression usually saw an increase in un pos as well as a period of boom
-> particaully true of Great Dep and 1930s
although high levels of unemp made wks vulnerable (1929 = 3% ; 1933 = 25%) and grateful to have a job
New Deal leg. to get ppl back to wk had a profound impact on un rights
-> usually result of gov action as it attempted to deal w/ high unemp levels and increase conflict bet emps and employees
The 19th century - eco change
exceptional growth in eco, esp during Gilded Age, created unprecedential demand for skilled labour in indus like construction
craft uns saw add of these wks to job market as a threat to their pos and therefore unwilling to allow them to join their uns
-> division weakened the un movement as even when unskilled wks attempted to est their own uns, employers could often resist due to lack of unity among wks
change in industry structure and freq failure to gain un recog for unskilled wks resulted in large no of wks being exposed to dangerous conditions and long hours with no org to protect them
The booms of the 1880s and 1920s
end of GA neg impacted pos of wkrs
fall in demand meant that fewer wks needed so able to use lower wages due to readily avalible wkfroce
wks = unable to combat this as uns lacked power to take on emps when they did, ensuing violence weakened un movement
period after WW1 = sim to GA
- boom of 1920s did little to advance labour rights
- gained from rise in real wages and welfare capitalism (but it limited independence)
Economic change post WW2
boom and changing nature of eco had neg impact on uns
new tech inc automation during 50s so no of blue-collar wks decreased
-> un mship in these industries fell by 50%, weakening bargaining power
growth in white-collar wks due to eco changes, esp in service indus and gov sector
-> some forced to sign non-un agreements - limit influ
growing no of women emp - often did not join male-dominated uns (decline in % of wkforce who were members of uns during 50s/60s)
1970s: eco change added diff for org labour and eco growth slowed - decline in productivity. Caused:
- rise in unemp
- fall in real wages esp among unsk
- inc reliance on high-tech indus (more skilled and white-collar wks more reluctat to join un)
- relocation : high tech indus often relocated to areas outside maj cities and smaller enterpirses than large factories of earlier periods (harder to unionise)
- reluctance to join by higher paid skilled wks (incentives not to)
Federal government attitudes and actions
American gov generally only intervene in eco times of emergency
for most of period, they adpoted a laissez-faire
- favoured emp and allowed them to form large business coop (some like Rockerfeller or Carnegie built up large industrial enterprises)
- emps able to exploit employees and deny them a voice
- most consistent way gov hindered development
gov allowed capitalism to thrive and businesses to wk toegther to make large profit
The Pullman Strike 1894
gov action to support wks = unusual in early years of period
-> the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890= an exception (restricted monopolies)
Laissez-faire attittude ensured any intervention would be on emps side, which was case during Pullamn Strike
- attorney general issued on injunction stopping anyone interfering w/ movement of mail
- > legal order preventing/forcing un action to be carried out
Pres Cleveland sent 2000 fed troops to break the strike
troops fired at protests killed 4 people -> gov = willing to kill its own people
SC legalised use of injunctions and issued Omnibus Indictment Act which prohinited strikers and wks representatives from trying to persuade others to strike
-> indication that fed authorities = willing to prevent uns from exerting rights
-> Act remained in force until Wagner Act in 1935
-> when wks did not disperse they were declared … and the strike illegal
How was the 19th century characterised?
by gov upholding pos of emps against uns
Attitudes of fed gov during WW1 (pos)
gov intervened in 1914 - passed Clayton Anti-Trust Act
limited use of injunctions against striking wks - allowed peaceful picketing, provided protestors did not damage property
recog of uns + est the NWLB to negotiate w/ uns
done to prevent strikes - successful (Samuel Gompers, leader AFL, ordered his large no of wks not to strike)
gov action improved pos of uns -> resulted in inc un mship during war years
Gov attitudes during WW1 (neg)
unwillingness of gov to intervene ensured wks had no means of seeking redress of grievances
gov’s first move towards supporting org labour = need for prod of war goods during WW1
not done out of sympathy for uns but need to sustain production and prevent strikes (potential to be reversed after war)
Attitudes of gov during WW2 (pos)
similar process during WW2 when gov re-established NWLB
improvement of pos of uns encouraged wks to join -> mship rose considerably
Attitudes of gov (neg)
gov action imp position of wks but as w/ WW1 efforts due to essential to war, not due to sympathy
contrast ; support for emps seen after WW2
many in gov esp Republicans (won 1946 election) believed power of uns too strong )pot for after war reversal)
-> Taft-Harley Act 1947 - limited power of uns
believed communists dominated labour movement and wanted to reduce their influence (Communsit0led groups were expelled, reducing mship no)
The role of the Supreme Court in limiting wks rights
SC = crucial role im limiting
- injunctions
Lockner v NY case 1905
SC intervention reached climax in 1935 - declared NIRA to be unconstitutional
Schechter brothers prosecuted by NIRA but SC ruled it was not a matter for the federal gov and declared that they had no right to intervene in matters that were concern of indiv. states (federal gov had acted unconstitutionally by taking power of states)
-> NIRA which had brought in progress and protection for wks was destroyed
Lockner v NY case 1905
SC rejected law that limited the no of hours a baker could work
did not accept arguement that the law = an attempt to regulate the temrs of employment and described it as “unreasonable, uncessary and arbitary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract”
judgement began a series which invalidated laws to regulate wking conditions up to WW2
- allowed yellow-dog contracts in Coppage v kansas case of 1913
- stated that minimum wage laws violated the due process clause in the Adkins v Children’s Hospital case of 1923
The impact of Pres Roosevelt (pos)
most sig gov intervention = during his presidency
collapse in world trade necessitated introduction of a programme to get large no of the unemployed back to work and stop industrial unrest caused by the collapse
New Deal leg transformed pos of wks/un
more gov leg helped production and gave right to org uns and take part in collective bargaining and allowed closed shops and prevented companies from using blacklists
est minimum wage
- NIRA 1933
- Wagner Act 1935
- Creation of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Fair Labor Standard Act 1938
-> reduced power of emp and prevented them from limiting the rights of wks
growth in un membership that followed these reforms suggests that gov action played a crucial role in growth of unionism during R’s pres.
Roosevelt (neg)
reluctant to improve power of wks
-> may have seen potential in crease support for Democrats but main concern = bringing stability by ending conflict bewt emps and employees
Attitudes of Presidents during the 60s/70s
perhaps only time that gov advanced cause of wks outside of war and national emergencies
1960s
leg introduced as part of wider cr movement and the desire to reduce no of ppl living below poverty line
-> as part of Kennedy’s ‘New Frontier’ and Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ a no of reforms introduced that improved pos of wks
- Equal Pay Act 1963: wage discrimination on basis of gender = illegal
- Civil Rights Act 1964: helped AAs and Hispanics who had faced discr at work
- Economic Opportunity Act 1964: provided funds to train ppl and inc emp opportunity
- Age Discrimination in Emp Act 1968: prevented discr against ppl aged 40-65
1970s
Nixon
- 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act: aimed to provide a wking environment which was free from hazards/unsanitart conditions
-> reversed the pos whereby the health and safety of wks had been largely ignored
- Department of Labour set the standards as employers had little influence
Carter
- est min wage
- attempts by uns to persuade him to reform the National Labr Relations Act failed - > showed there still limits to gov willingness to support wks (more evident under R)
Impact of President Reagan
towards end of period, presidential action played its most sig role in reducing labour movement influence
Reagan = determined to reudce un power
aim = remove restrictive regulations that had hindered US industry but protected wks
wanted to privatise publically owned businesses -> not in wks interest
clear that he believed the pendulum had swung too far in favour of wks/employees -> evident in gov response to 1981 PATCO Strike
-> gov unwilling to allow air traffic controllers to be paid more for wking fewer hours
-> gov concerned that such a strike would serious impact on eco (as well as disrupting holidays)
-> Reagan: if wks did not return w/in 48hrs, contracts would be ended
- redefinsed industrial relations
gov gave clear message as to how they thought uns should proceed and continued woth Labor Relations Board
(appointments to the board= made by pres and ensured they supported his views - any disputs likely to favour emp)
impact of WW1 and WW2
inc demand in production offered emps opp to increase profits
-> meant they had a more concilatory approach as a result of demands for labour
wars encouraged gov intervention in the eco -> benefitted wks
-> reflected in inc un mship 14-18 and 39-45
-> during WW1: 2.7 - 5 million (16-20) ; WW2: 8.9-14.8 million (40-45)
rise in real wagees -> WW1 = 20%; WW2 = 70% (owing to overtime)
-> raised standard of living
Impact of WW1
benefits aided by NWLB -> recog un rep wks and gaurenteed their rights to join a un in return for no-strike policies and coop
-emps responded pos to NWLB and intro of 8hr days
Impact of WW2
NWLB largely took control of industry away from emps -> benefitted wks
as in WW1 = supportive of uns
pres = given power to take control of factories where strike action threatened war effort
Labour shortages due to growth in armed forces and enduring of immigration during war helped strengthen pos of wks and provided opps for many who had been excluded from wkforce, inc AA and women
However, despite gains, clear that emps sought to regain their control and limit/reserve gains that org labour had made during post-war periods
-> indus unrest = common feature of 1919-20 and 1946-7 w/ 1919 seeing 4 mil wks involved in indus action and 1946 = 5 mil
-> wks gains during war periods = often temp
Relationship between skilled and unskilled workers (pos)
1930s - worker solidarity more evident
1935, some uns broke away from AFL (interested in amalgamating craft uns than helping unskilled wks) - solidarity
breakaway group formed Committee on Industrial Organization which became Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in 1937
- more rep for unskilled wks
1955 merger pf AFL with CIO -> AFLO-CIO
- 85% of un members (16 mil) - able to exert more pressure over wages and conditions (best way to preserve interests was through greater solidarity)
AFL-CIO secured benefits despite change - wages of un membership rose 20% and growth in mem from public sector
Rel bet unskilled and skilled wks (neg)
1860s - uns = protect those in skilled and craft indus
-> idea of strength in no = ignored (still a problem by outbreak of WW1)
opp to unskilled wks limited size of un mship to limit press that wks could exert on gov and emps
-> evident in New Deal years - large no of unskilled wks denied rights (e.g AFL)
initial split into CIO from AFL weakened labour movement
divisions post WW2 continued to limit un influence
- change in eco = inc in white collar jobs -> less likely to join a un and were more willing to sign no-strike agreement
- prop of wkforce in un = 31% -> limited power
- division evident in PATCO strike - influence reduced
- 70s and 80s continued to decline of blue-collar and inc in w-c (inscentives to not join un)
Ethnic divisions
white wks = concerned AAs and European/Asian imms taking their jobs and working for lower pay
- therefore, many uns did not allow them to join or offered little support
many AAs = non-un and emps could exploit divisions
Ethnic divisions during abolition and immigration
abolition of slavery meant that whites and imms = unwilling to work w/ them
-> meant that emps could lay off whites and replace with AAs at times of unrest - limited striking ability due to fear of being replaced
emps able to sack any wks who attempted to org action -> removal of the men who might have been able to effecitvely lead uns as at time when wks orgs needed to be united to gain rights, emps = able to ignore demands and exploit divisions
exacerbated by arrival of imms - wk for lower pay
-> unskilled not allowed to join
Continuing ethnic divisions in the 20th century
1894 - Pullman Strike
-> many affiliates of AFL excluded AAs so harder for porters to org
-> struggle lasted until 1937 -> coll barg agreement w/ Pullman Company
racial divisions and eco separation (Washington) = many AA not want to join uns led by white ppl -> weakened unity of wkforce until post-WW2
divisions remained during CR movement period
-> uns did not promote equal opps
1971-90 = 2.5 million Asian imm (esp after Vietnam War) weakened uns
-> lower wages and less intent on joining and willing to work for firms that ran non-un enterprises
Gender divisions
no of women in the wkforce increased but faced divisions (esp AA and NA)
campaign for the vote took priority over joining uns
Women and TU in ther period to 1945
main concern = limit exploitation
uns dominated by men so in 1903 the Women’s Trade Union League (WTUL)
-> aimed to enc women to org into uns
-> saw gaining vote as best way to imp
-> wanted 8hr day and min wage -> conflict w/ male uns who believed it was their right to campaign for it
(not all male uns supported this and those that did did do to stop firms employing women as they were cheaper)
WW1 and WW2 = drastic increase in women emp in wkforce -> some joined male uns
Women and TU in the post-war period
much wk = part time and were not int in joining uns
fulltime were concerned with childcare and paid maternity leave
-> saw uns as best way to achieve this so were more attracted to uns than feminist movement and no of uns increased in 70s
changing eco situation and delcine in un mship in later 70s
many women in high tech induss = had welfare schemes so women less interested in joining uns (pos weakened)
Union violence
discouraged wks from joining uns and did not want to be ass w/ such acts
-> particular problem in 1st 1/2 of period
evidence of mship decline after violence
presented a reason for gov and emps to resist un demands
first clear indication of impact of violence = Molly Magins 1873
- Irish imms wanted better wking conditions
- derailed camages and set fire to coal tips - murdered superintendent
- > wks = reluctant to join uns (disapprove or feared intimidation) - limited power
The Haymarket Affair 1886
strike at McCormick Harvester Plant = violence bet police and strikers (Chicago)
4 strikers killed - bombs thrown in protest march that followed
7 policemen killed - police returned fire, killed 4 more
trouble blamed on German iims
no evi dound but 5 = executed
strikers actions encouraged dislike of uns -> blamed for events
weakened and divided labour movement
NA = even more suspicious of imms
destoryed rep of KOL and led some uns to breakawayt (join AFL or IDotW)
The Homestead Strike 1892
prob most famous violent strike
between Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers and Carnegie Steel Company
lasted 143 days
there had been trouble at the wks in 1882 and 1889 but these resulted in growth in un mship
1892 violence due to comapny’s decision to advertise for replacement wks after locking the un out of the plant following failure to reach coll bargaining agreement
culminated w/ shooting and stabbing of Henry Frick, ruthless millionaire who had been brought in to break un
-> led to collapse of strike
the violence broke the un and resulted in dramatic decline in mship (1891 = 24,000 ; 1894 = 10,000 ; 1909= 6300)
Carnegie Steel Company = non-unionised for another 40yrs
not a single steel plant in Pennsylvania was unionised in 1900
harmed progress of wks gaining rights
-> emps in other indus = more suspicious of granting recog to uns
violence continued in to 20th century provided emps with justification to resist calls for more peaceful/less common -> perhaps recog its limitations achieveing aims
The attitudes of management to organised labour and strikes
used powers of appeal to gov for support
start resisted introduction of health/safety measures would impact rights
1892 Homestead Strike - locked wks out called in state militia agents
1894 Pullman Strike appealed to gov -> troops
Henry Ford: used secutrity men to attack/intimidate potential un organisers
Pullman dispute 1920s-30s: sacked un leaders and used spies
1920s/30s -> many companies set up uns -> offered benefits to negate need for uns
emps made to sign no-strike and non-un agreements
scab labour brought in to break strikes
some emps ignored law over wage agreements
emps gen resisted claims of wks orgs
first half - break strike, intimidate wks -> discourage othera frm joining
second half - able to erode some of the legislation gains made by wks
Union membership
grew until 1980s but was not able to attract all wks
start - deliberate by uns e.g refusing AA to join/not protecting unskilled wks
-> exacerbated by violence -> dissuaded many from joins
after WW2 - failure to attract due to chanfes in industrial structure and native of resultant wkforce
therefore emps did not have to deal w/ large no of trade unionists which would have given strength and press
emps able to bring non-un wks to resist un demands
end - 1980 = 20 mil, 1995 = 16.5 mil
no of days lost to strikes over halved from 1980
unionisation also affected by decision to est factories in developing countrues to est
-> decreased no of un recruits
-> reinforced by growth in service sector which trad attracted fewer un members
