Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - History Other Labor Party in the US Labor Party in the US Many people are convinced that most American working-class people will never choose to support any labor-oriented party today. Looking back at the history of labor organizations in America, one can begin to understand this traditional opposition to unions or labor parties despite the benefits it may have provided. The workers themselves organize in order to gain a measure of respect, better their standard of living and achieve some stability in employment. They do not join unions to maintain the union or a union-based party. Even during the late 1800s, the American public viewed unions with mistrust and uncertainty. It appeared to the American people that the labor unions were fighting for better working conditions one minute, and the next it appeared that they were leading a revolution against business and government. The unions' contributions to society were often over-shadowed by the violence used to improve conditions that they felt were demeaning to the working class. These strikes were often peaceful, but sometimes they turned violent at Haymarket Square, Homestead, and with the Pullman Strike. This led the American pubic to believe that the Unions could not be trusted, and the public then supported government force to quell the Unions. The Pullman strike of 1894 was a strike where blood was shed forcing a government reaction. Eugene Debs, the leader of the American Railway Union, led 4,000 Pullman workers in a strike that caused rail traffic to cease in the west. This affected the flow of mail, which was a federal crime. This delay plunged the American people into havoc. The American public would not stand for such a delay. This caused our government to take a stand and defend the rights of the minority. President Grover Cleveland expressed his view of the events with the statement "If it takes the entire army and navy of the United States to delivered a postal card in Chicago, that card will be delivered.” When the federal government used special deputies to handle the mail, violence of previously unseen proportions broke loose. The New York World in 1894 reported that the strike was like a "war against the government and society." The public perceived these types of movements by unions as though those strikers were in chaos and did not care about any laws. Due to the chaotic violence brought about through the strikes, the public saw this as an act of anarchy and resented the strikes all together. Besides, most American workers were generally better off than workers in Europe and had more hope of improving their lives. For this reason, the majority did not join labor unions. At this time, many workers in Europe were joining revolutionary labor movements that advocated the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a new socialist economic system. Most American workers, however, followed the lead of Samuel Gompers, with his highly pragmatic approach to problems of labor. They strove to organize strong unions so that they could demand a greater share in the wealth that they helped to produce. They were not interested in destroying the economic structure of the country but in making it work more effectively for their benefit. Gompers believed that unions should be primarily concerned with the day-to-day welfare of their members and should not become involved in politics. He also was convinced that socialism would not succeed in the United States but that practical demands for higher wages and fewer working hours could achieve the goal of a better life for working people. This was known as "bread and butter" unionism. However, it becomes clear that pure and simple trade unionism is not enough. One has to recognize that politics is important to the labor movement and that there is nothing that labor can win at the bargaining table that cannot be taking away by regulation, legislation or political decision-making. Unionists cannot leave politics alone, because politics will not leave unions alone. There was one outstanding exception to the pragmatic "bread and butter" approach to unionism, which characterized most of American labor. This was the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a revolutionary labor union launched in Chicago in 1905 under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs. The IWW the overthrow of capitalism through strikes, boycotts and sabotage. Particularly strong among textile workers, dockworkers, migratory farmers and lumberjacks, the union reached its peak membership in 1912. But the IWW had practically disappeared by 1918, because of federal prosecutions and a national sentiment against radicalism that began in 1917. Adding to more tensions, the continual influx of new immigrants and workers did not make it easy for unions who supported them. Americans were both afraid of, and hostile towards these new groups. They differed from the "typical American" in language, customs, and religion. Many individuals and industries alike played upon America’s fears of immigration to further their own goals. The immigrants, in response to the economic hardship and social inequality which they found in America’s industrial cities, were attracted to the utopian promises of socialist, communist and other radical political groups which advocated a drastic change in American society. There was widespread fear—almost hysteria—among more established Americans that a revolution might break out in the United States. In response to this fear, the federal government launched a series of raids that resulted in the arrest and sometimes the deportation of aliens who were members of socialist, anarchist or communist organizations. Many people began to denounce labor unions, the Socialist party, and the Communist party in America, as being infiltrated with radicals who sought to overturn America’s political, economic, and social institutions. During the years following World War I, the labor movement suffered even more setbacks and difficulties. While AFL membership had reached almost 4 million by 1919, the postwar reaction from employers and their allies was swift and predictable. The head of U.S. Steel refused to meet with striking workers. The AFL endorsed and supported a strike of steelworkers committed to such objectives as the end of the 12-hour day, the dismantlement of company-dominated "unions," collective bargaining and wage increases. Using massive propaganda which sought to depict the strike as "unpatriotic," plus such time-tested favorites as strikebreakers, spies, armed guards and cooperative police departments, "Big Steel" finally wore down the strikers, and they were forced to return to work early in 1920 under the old conditions. Meanwhile, workers were still striking for higher wages all over the United States. Many Americans still believed that communists and anarchists led these strikes. During the Progressive era, the public had sympathized with labor. Now the public became hostile to it. Employers encouraged anti-union movements, or created company unions that they sought to control. Courts found legal openings in the Clayton Act and issued rulings against union activity. The courts also found ways to use the Sherman Anti-trust Act against unions. Opposed by public opinion, business and the courts, union membership fell. The number of AFL members dropped to 2,770,000 by 1929. This decline took place even though the number of workers in industry rose by almost seven million. In the 1930s, the AFL attempted to force workers into a form of trade unionism that many workers felt did not serve their interest. Fortunately, immediately after FDR was elected, thousands of workers joined large local unions, often organized by a central labor council or an AFL union. The New Deal had boosted the sagging working class participation of the twenties by lending support to large industrial unions. For a time, their successes increased wages even for some non-union industrial workers. Early success was, however, built on an unsustainable foundation. Consistent with the structure of the AFL, workers were divided up amongst different craft unions in accordance with their function on the job. Many workers found themselves under-represented by this scheme. Many of these were narrow business unions whose primary concern was the wages of their own members. Just as fast as workers joined these locals they left. So by 1934-35 the upsurge of working people into the trade union movement seemed to halt. In recent years there has been a steady decline in the percentage of workers who belong to labor unions. In the early 1980’s they enrolled in their ranks only one of five members of the labor force, down from one of four in the 1950’s and 1960’s. These workers had a somewhat greater say in their work lives and in the halls of Congress and state legislatures. They sometimes followed the political calls of their leaders and sometimes did not. In 1988, less than 20 percent of the labor force were unionized. There are several reasons for this, such as the decline of heavy industry (once a stronghold of unionism) and the increase of advanced-technology industries. Automation and other technological advances have displaced many blue-collar workers. Foreign competition has depressed some United States industries and increased unemployment. Ever increasing numbers of workers are employed in service-providing businesses, such as hotels, restaurants and retail stores. Bibliography: Word Count: 1492
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.