How far did the position of unions and organised labour improve in the period 1865-1992?

Labour and Union Rights by the outbreak of WW1:

Unions only represented skilled workers in craft industries, yet rapid industrialisation meant that many
unskilled workers were excluded from unions and had no protection.
Unskilled workers were hired under contracts.
No health and safety standards due to the interference with profit margins.

Late 19th Century:

Growth in number of unions KOL (700 000 members by 1886) and AFL, suggesting crucial strike action was
successful.
Violence of the Haymarket Affair associated unions with violence and membership dropped to 100 000.
AA arrivals meant that white workers no longer enjoyed a monopoly of the labour market slaves were
available for employment and were exploited.
The Homestead and Pullman Strikes virtually bankrupted the Iron and Steel Association diminishing
membership to 6300.
Represented only 20% of non-agricultural workforce.
Lack of legal recognition.
Many industries simply had no unions.

WW1 and Interwar Years:

During the war, the positions improved increased demand for consumer goods, led to increased profits,
which in turn allowed for conciliatory employers.
National War Labour Board brought working hours to 8.
Economic boom afterwards saw a rise in real wages and a decline in unemployment.
Development of welfare capitalism was only agreed under no-strike provisions.
Many employers refused to recognise unions, such as Henry Ford who exerted tight control and would not
recognise any union for collective bargaining until 1941.
BSCP was eventually recognised under Roosevelts Railway Labour Act and within a year, 51% of porters
were protected.

Great Depression 1929:

The Wall Street Crash halted improvements.

Union membership fell as more and more strike breakers were drafted in to prevent strike actions.

New Deal:

Roosevelts 1933 introduction is argued as a high point in labour rights.

Wide range of legislation 1933 NIRA encouraged firms to agree to codes of practice that dealt with
improving hours, wages and rights. It enshrined in law, the rights of unions to participate in collective
bargaining. Its effects were also limited, however, because not all employers signed the code. The Supreme
Court declared the Act unconstitutional and workers gains were reversed once more.
NLRB could negotiate on behalf of workers and prevent companies from using their own unions, recognised
the role of unions and led to rapid expansion to 9m, constitutional declaration.
Fair Labour Standards Act 1939 gave workers a minimum wage.
WW2:

Mirrors WW1.
Wage increases, unemployment decreasing, growth in union membership.
Could be viewed as a turning point in union movement.
Union membership soared, giving influential union voices in politics.
Balance of power had moved in favour of workers.

Post-WW2:

Unions were believed to have become too strong under Roosevelt.

Taft-Hartley 1947 limited union power.
Economic changes threatened to undermine the position of workers.
Growth in the number of white-collar workers meant that fewer workers actually needed unions.
The influence of unions was much less noticeable as workers had been give paid holidays, healthcare,
pensions etc. and so were less interested.

1960s:

Kennedys Equal Pay Act 1963 gave men and women equal pay for equal work.
Johnsons Great Society benefitted workers who lived in poverty.
Civil Rights Act 1964-outlawed discrimination based on race, religion, colour, sex and Economic
Opportunities Act increased training opportunities.
Merge to create AFLCIO brought together 85% of union members providing a formidable force with its 16m
members wage bargaining, contract conditions, pensions, holidays, insurance etc.
Unions had consolidated their position right to join was firmly established and collaboration with
employers was now evident.

End of Period:

Power and importance of unions was reduced compared with 1960s and the New Deal, but rights were
prolonged seeing long-lasting influence.
PATCO Strike 1981 reduced membership this changed government attitudes and Reagan became
intimidating to union rights.
Decline in business sizes made it harder to organise workers.
Increasing white collar workers still, who had no union interest.
Non-unionised firm growth.
 How far did government action and the attitudes of the federal government help or hinder
development of labour rights?

Pullman Strike 1894:

Government action during this period was largely unusual, however Sherman Anti-Trust Act
Laissez-faire attitude ensured that any intervention was on the side of the employers and intervention was
merely unheard of.
President Cleveland sent in some 2000 federal troops to suppress the strike and killed four people, showing
that the government was not afraid to kill its own people for employer benefit.
In this instance, federal authorities were willing to prevent unions from exerting rights reinforced by
injunctions, the Omnibus Indictment Act which prohibited strikes and the unconstitutional rendering of the
NIRA.

Two World Wars:

Clayton Anti-Trust Act 1914 limited injunctions and allowed peaceful picketing.
Need for production of war goods saw the governments first move to supporting organised labour
established NWLB to negotiate with unions, however this was not done out of sympathy.
NWLB was successful as Gompers ordered workers not to strike.
Similar processes reappeared during WW2, seeing the reestablishment of the NWLB, but efforts were only
applied due to the need to suffice the war efforts.
Republicans introduced 1947 Taft-Hartley Act that restrained union power.

Role of Supreme Court:

Injunctions to break Pullman Strike 1894.

Lochner v. New York rejected law that limited working hours. This decision to disregard health of the
workers began a series which invalidated laws to regulate working conditions such as the Coppage v. Kansas
yellow-dog stipulation and the Adkins v. Childrens Hospital that stated minimum wage violated clauses.
Intervention reached its epitome when the NIRA was declared unconstitutional in 1935.

Role of Presidents:

Roosevelt and the New Deal NIRA 1933, National Labour Relations Board, Fair Labour Standards Act 1938
reduced employer power and allowed worker dominated.
Kennedys New Frontier and Johnsons Great Society Equal Pay Act, Economic Opportunity Act and Age
Discrimination Act.
Carter introduced a minimum wage.
Nixon brought in the Occupational Health and Safety Standards Act.
Reagan suppressed all means of unionism demonstrated within the PATCO 1981 Strike.
To what extent did improvements in the economy during the Gilded Age (1875-96) benefit workers and
unions?

Improvement:

Wages rose somewhat 60% even alongside the rapid rise in available workforce due to immigration.
Increase in transport, industrialisation and heavy industry created an increasing demand for labour
industry overtook Britain, which had been the worlds largest producer.
Unions such as the AFL and KOL saw huge increases in membership.
The AFL was the first successful national labour federation, hoping to link all unions.
Extended influences into politics at national and local levels pressure placed on political candidates to
support unionism.

Lack of Improvement:

Clevelands suppression of strikers via means of violence 2000 troops enforced.

Increasing inequality and poverty, with 2% of the population owning 30% of wealth.
Wages of unskilled workers were around 30% of skilled.
Exploitation of AA and firing of white workers to enforce such methods.
Contract systems.
Lack of health and safety standards in 1889, 2000 rail workers were killed in accidents.
Economic slump in the 1880s reduced influence of union movements as unemployment pervaded.
Laissez-faire policy encouraged large corporations and meant that there was no protective legislation for
workforces.
Courts supported employers and issued copious injunctions.
Industrialisation and mechanisation saw the decline in skilled workers.
The violence of strikes such as the 1894 Pullman Strike and 1886 Haymarket Affair created negative
association.
Employers such as Ford failed to recognise the significance of unions until 1941.
Did the New Deal bring about an improvement in the position of workers?

Improvement:

NIRA in 1933 prioritised relations between employers and employees, aiming to bring about cooperation on
wages, production and hours.
1935 Wagner Act gave workers the right to elect their own reps to participate in collective bargaining and
gave workers the right to join unions.
Union membership grew to 9 million.
The Fair Labour Standards Act of 1938 created minimum weekly wage.
CIO 1935, renamed in 1937, encouraged whole industry based unions, but also encouraged AA and other
ethnic groups to join, bringing an element of unity to the labour movement.

Lack of Improvement:

Henry Ford and many employers did not recognise the NIRA or Wagner Act.
The Supreme Court declared the NIRA unconstitutional in 1935.
Employers used those willing to break strikes or strong-arm tactics to intimidate workers. Continued violence
was used against workers.
Unskilled workers and those at the lower end of the pay rage did not benefit from improvements, and
neither did women, as pay differentials were upheld y the NIRA and Fair Labour Standards Act which were
dissolved.
Although some welfare reforms assisted the poverty-stricken, they were limited due to the conflicts between
state and federal rights.
How important was the role of individual African Americans in the development of civil rights?

Booker T. Washington (1856-1915)

Famous as an educator and for both gaining the confidence of white Americans and his moral authority among African
Americans.
Hard work, education and seriousness of purpose would lead to AA showing their true worth, increasing prosperity and
gaining much-needed white confidence.
Hostility of whites during Reconstruction convinced him that political civil rights should be abandoned in favour of
personal improvement.
Success of his institute and hopes brought about for gradual improvement without political or social change won much
support.
Carnegie gave Washington $600 000 in bonds.
Ideas most clearly stated in Atlanta told AA to dip your bucket take responsibility for their own progress and accept
white supremacy. Given the huge problems of resisting the Jim Crow laws, this seemed rational.
Practically ruled, whereas education was the key to the emergence of other leaders such as MLK.
Cooperation with white leaders yielded progress in the 1960s and the stress on economic improvement anticipated the
post-1964 direction of the CRM.
He was criticised by those who sought more radical aims, just like MLK, but was the first AA to be hugely respected by
the white community.

W.E.B Du Bois (1868-1963)

Division between followers of Washington and Du Bois was later mirrored by Kings passive resistance and the radical,
separatist views of the Black Power.
There should be an elite the Talented 10th who would lead AA to equality and social and political equality and
integration.
Appalled by lynching and spoke with a passion that anticipated the rhetoric of King much more than Washingtons dry
rationalism.
The Niagara Movement, inspired by Du Bois, pressed for more radical change and created the foundations of the
NAACP. Opposed segregation and challenged segregationist laws.
NAACP established in 1909 displayed social aims desegregation pleas.
Accepted alliance with white supporters and as director of research and publicity he was the only AA to hold office in
the organisation.
Wilson introduced segregation in bureaus, lynching and violence continued unabated Du Bois organised a protest
march in New York, anticipating later marches.
Interest shifted to international affairs and pan-Africanism need for unity and solidarity among Africans all over the
world.
Shifted attention to the need to publicise the CRM through the press and to organise, but his radicalism led him along
different paths.
Pan-Africanism was shared by Garvey and organising shared by Randolph shows the wide variation in individual
leadership,

Marcus Garvey (1887-1940)

Corresponded with Washington and wanted to set up an industrial institute in Jamaica.

Set up a shipping company called the Black Star Line to trade with Africans worldwide similar to the pan-Africanism of
Du Bois.
Like Washington, he saw the importance of economic development and set up the Negro Factories Corporation to
promote manufacture and trade amongst Africans.
Speeches drew large crowds and stressed the proud African traditions.
Opposed Du Bois due to his emphasis on separate identity that Garvey instead wanted to integrate.
Glorified Africanism, which in some ways prefigured Black Power.
His eccentricity somewhat makes him a lone figure.
Because the economic ventures failed, and because of his imprisonment and later schemes, he has been seen as an
isolated and bizarre figure.
His organisation was not matched by anything before 1917 and not again until the mass movements of the 1960s.
Philip Randolph (1890-1979)

Randolph, influenced by Du Bois writings, continued integrationist policies.

Moved to New York where he was an active union organiser for AA workers.
Pressured Roosevelt to end discrimination in the war industries by threatening a mass march on Washington this
major tactic was new Washington had organised a march in 1917 and it led to the highly effective tactic of mass
march on Washington in 1963, which MLK dominated and Randolph organised.
Understanding of the power of non-violent mass demonstration was his key contribution to the CRM.
Used the economic power of organised labour.
Considerable pressure on Truman to end segregation in the armed forces in 1948.
The use of marches, demonstrations and effective organisation, working with white sympathisers and putting pressure
on administrations paid off in the long run, and these key tactics moved the CRM on more than other leaders had done.
Du Bois was the inspiration but organised on a smaller scale and definitely not in comparable numbers. Washington saw
similar economic development importance but had no political interest. Garvey could attract large numbers, but had no
specific aims.
Key figure in linking the aspirations and ideals of previous leaders.

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-68)

Brought together previous trends.

Religious background, like Randolph, showed importance of organisation and gave him moral vocabulary Garvey was
also a proud and effective orator.
King was organising in an era that was far more eager for change.
Supported the boycotting of buses associated with Rosa Parks.
Saw the value of concerted action and organisation formed the SCLC.
Like Randolph, saw the moral power of Gandhi-like non-violence.
Saw the power of mass demonstration like Randolph.
Integration and equality aims, with white cooperation.
Aware of the importance of modern media if marches and sit-ins provoked violent reactions from white authorities,
they would now be broadcasted and would amount to excellent publicity.
Understood the power of rhetoric and the telling phrase.
MLK displayed direct emotional appeal, whereas Malcolm was critical of the fake show of unity and the false sense of
unity in referring to the dream.
Took a major role in marches and demonstrations, unlike any other leader, therefore becoming an active figure in all
aspects of AA rights.
Scale of activity allowed CR legislation to be passed as a matter of urgency.
Randolph had previously succeeded in altering the law, but not as fundamentally as MLK.
Engendered criticism and disapproval in a similar way to Washington for working too closely with white supporters.

Malcolm X (1925-65)

His skill was in speaking and writing like other leaders, and he was responsible for a rapid growth in membership to 40
000 by 1960.
He preached violent revolution unlike any other leaders, urging AA not to reject any means for change.
Ideas went beyond predecessors link socialism with pan-nationalism, anti-colonialism and radical Islam.
The influence he had on the emergence of the Black Power movement was considerable.
Given his aims, it was not possible for him to claim MLKs success.
Less popular support than Garvey at his height and a less coherent strategy it seems.
Considerable influence in promoting a sense of pride and identity among AA that did not depend of integration.