Friday, March 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An Interactive Way of Learning US History
Users
Blog Archive
Contributors
Since the 19th century workforce was made up of mostly unskilled workers, they were deemed expendibile and often mistreated by thier bosses. However, labor unions gave power to the workers by uniting them. The labor unions spread nationally, and forced bosses to give high wages and better working conditions.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 19th century the labor force was made up of unskilled workers who had simple and mundane tasks such a pulling a lever or hitting a button. Immigrants and woman were also working during this time period. The labor unions for the unskilled workers helped to unite them and protect them. The bosses felt that since there was such a large population of people willing to work that the labor was disposable so bosses took advantage of them by giving them low wages and terrible working conditions. With the labor unions it gave the workers a sense of protection and helped to keep their wages higher and the working conditions safer.
ReplyDeleteCarla brings up a really good point when she discusses the fact that the labor unions spread through out the country.
ReplyDeleteThe formation of labour unions had dramatically altered the ways in which the corporate systems functioned. Before thier creation, many unskilled labourers were exploited and easy to replace. However, the creation of labour unions took away some power from the corporate managers and put it into the hands of the workers. Therefore, labourers were able to make sure that they were being treated farily and recieved a fair pay.
ReplyDeleteUnions took the lesser skilled workers and brought them together to make sure everyone of their trade gets equal pay and rights. this led to the creation of the assembly line when each person is skilled in doing one small job to create a whole item
ReplyDeletei agree with Carla and Hope. the unions forced the bosses to pay a minimum wage and keep up working conditions for unskilled workers
ReplyDeleteIn the latter part of the 1800s, labor unions had only a minimal influence on corporations. Even though strikes highlighted how corporations took advantage of its employees, the labor unions were unable to meet success against the large corporations. In the Great Railroad Strike, for example when the eastern Railroads announced a 10 percent wage cut, strikers disrupted rail service from Baltimore to St. Louis, destroyed equipment, and rioted in the streets. This strike was a failure for the labor unions, and it caused the government to ally with the owners and managers of the railroad business.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the AFL, the union also posed only a slight threat to the new system of business, in its demand for an eight hour day. In May 1886 when this was not achieved, all across the nation, strikes unsuccessfully broke out. In another example, the most powerful trade union in the country, the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, failed after Frick announced another wage cut at Homestead and the union called for a strike, which soon turned violent. The strikers poured oil on the water, setting it on fire. Although this threatened Carnegie’s partner, as a radical tried to assassinate Frick, people began to fear the unions, as they became tired of the anarchy that followed.
With all of these unions, the power and size of the labor unions decreased after the strikes. This showed that the impact was minimal on the companies, as unskilled workers could easily be replaced. Overall, workers made few gains because corporations were stronger than businesses before.
I do agree however that the unions were not as funtional as they were established to be, but were still a revolutionary idea and concept.
ReplyDeleteIt's seems Carly is the only one who is actually informed....
ReplyDeleteIn the latter part part of the 18th century, there was a huge rise in the unskilled labor force due to the mechanization of industry. Workers were very expendable in this case, and thus formed unions to band together. Although unions had existed before, the idea really took hold in this era. Although one might think to the contrary, they were not very successful.
Every time a union held a strike, they were met with serious backlash from the government. People grew tired of the upset caused by these strikes, so the unions did little to help themselves.
It's great how hardly anyone has actually done the homework! Anyway, I think Carly said it the best, because she had specific examples and whatnot.
ReplyDeleteTrying to win some reasonable working conditions during the 19th century was like trying to go up against an elephant with a speck of dust. It was inconceivable. Corporate moguls like Carnegie and Rockefeller had so much money and influence that they were pretty much untouchable by the average, lowly, poor, uneducated, dirty, immigrant worker. So the natural thinking process went from trying to take on The Man by oneself to taking on The Man as a coalition.
ReplyDeleteBut that didn't work out either, because The Man really is untouchable. That is to say that the big corporate head honchos were so rich and so powerful that not even a union could affect them. Which isn't surprising, because when you have enough dust to make a dust bunny, it still doesn't stand a chance against a elephant.
I agree with Joe, because he's able to see both sides of the argument. I also agree with Laura, because she very clearly did her homework.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura, Melinh, and Joe's second post. Unions really had minimal influence on corporations, and were rather an image that represented the growing working-class' unhappiness with capitalistic America. In fact, as the 19th century progressed, the unions lost influence and followers after many defeats and the public's and government's hatred towards the unions was intensified.
ReplyDeleteLabor unions in during the late 1800s really had little to no effect on the corporate restructuring. As Melinh stated, the founders and money-making machines like Carnegie and Rockefeller, were the revolutionary attempts during that time period as well as the ideas of Capitalism and Social Darwinism. Men liked the "Survival of the Fittest" idea because it provided them with a way to know that their corporations truly were better than the others. Additionally, Social Darwinism basically stated that attempts to make labor unions would fail, an aspect that was so appealing to the businessmen. However, all this rise in competition really contradicted itself, as while businesses were trying to focus on buying other businesses out, they needed to also focus on protecting themselves from being bought out. In the end, everything cancels out.
ReplyDeleteBy the end of the century, labor unions had been attempted at, however with little success. There was the formation of the National Labor Union , but by far the most influential event was the Great Railroad Strike which may have revved up the aspect of labor unions for years to come.
I definitely agree with Melinh and Laura. Like Melinh said, the big-time moguls were the most influential part of the latter 19th century and labor unions really didn't have the kind of power necessary to even be heard by men like Carnegie and Rockefeller
ReplyDeleteWorkers of all occupations in the 19th century formed labor unions in hopes that together as a larger force, they will be able to successfully increase their pay and improve their living conditions. Their efforts, however, did not leave an immediate mark or change the corporate structure. The big guys such as Rockefeller large companies were simply too powerful to be affected. However, the workers repeated attempts at strikes and other work stoppages were successful in that they publicized their complaints. At least, the companies were now aware that the way they ran their businesses was negatively impacting the workers. Though the impact labor unions had on companies was small, it was in no way nonexistent.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe that the labor unions were a new and revolutionary idea. They may not have had immediate impact, but they did bring about a new way of thinking in regards to workers and those who hired them.
ReplyDeleteDuring the latter portion of the 19th century, unskilled workers gathered together to create labor unions that received equality in terms of pay. However, their impact on corporate reconstruction was not that great. With powerful men like Rockefeller and Carnegie, their influence through their major companies over all was just too great. The labor unions would then try and hold a strike which would many times be unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe on how many of these unskilled workers were very easily replaced which led to a reason as to why the strikes were not necessarily beneficial.
ReplyDeleteLabor unions helped workers, who were deemed expendable by the higher-ups, to unite and gain some power. As individuals, it was them against a powerful boss/owner and if they went against the person in charge, they were fired. But as an entire group, factories were forced a pay more attention.
ReplyDeleteTracy makes a good point - the unions' impact was very small. However, it wasn't nonexistant. It got bosses listening a little and let them know that what they were doing (poor wages and conditions) wasn't ok. This would eventually give way to laws pertaining those problems, so it really wasn't for NOTHING. It was important to an extent.
ReplyDeleteLabor unions, while not very effective, did help laborers during the latter part of the 19th century. The unions allowed the workers' opinions and complaints to be heard, and it gave them power (to a small extent) over their bosses. Their unity gave them both pride and voice, and it allowed them to gain better working conditions and pay. They weren't very effective, but they did somtimes give small benefits to workers. Also, labor laws were eventually established, so the work of the labor unions was definitely impactful to a certain extent.
ReplyDeleteI like how Helen brought up the extreme power of people like Carnegie and Rockefeller.She has a good point about how the presence of such powerful people completely overpowers the labor unions. Had these labor unions formed in a time not so dominated by these "superpowers," they might have been more successful.
ReplyDeleteLabor unions were created in order to get the voices of every worker heard by all. These unions had a purpose of getting better work conditions and higher wages. Although factories did take notice of them, they were not very effective going against huge bosses and factory owners. Finally, the labor union would go on strike if they believed their opinions were not being heard and conditions did not improve. The problem with these unions is that if they were unskilled, the factory owners would have no problem firing and replacing all of them.
ReplyDeleteI also like how Helen used Carnegie and Rockafeller as examples of big time "bosses" that were very difficult to go up against because they were so rich and powerful.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 19th century, a large majority of the american workforce, was unskilled workers. They consisted mostly of immigrants, women, and children. During this time, the working conditions were beyond terrible. The harsh conditions reached an extent that the workers had to do something to improve them. The AFL and Knights of Labor were created and were the first established labor unions. Labor unions were usually only successful when they represented skilled workers that couldnt be easily replaced. These unions had created the idea of a strike. One of them involved train conductors not switching certain trains in a strike. in another instance, factory workers locked themselves inside their factory.
ReplyDeleteLabor unions during the 19th century were created by associations of workers for the purpose of improving their economic status and working conditions through collective bargaining with employers. The workers hoped that if they worked together, rather than individually, they could change their bad working conditions. Even though their efforts led to strikes and hostility (which factories took notice of), it was not enough to severely hurt huge company owners such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan. These three men were the wealthiest business owners at the time. Since they had so much wealth the labor unions did not end up affecting them.
ReplyDeleteI like that Grant brought up the fact that the factory owners would have no problem replacing unskilled workers. The unskilled workers were harder to protect and expendable.
ReplyDeleteWith the increasing role of women, children, and immigrants in the 19th century workforce, most laborers did not receive the same results when standing up for themselves in horrible working conditions and their male, Americanized counterparts did. The formation of labor unions provided relief to those laborers who suffered from these problems and although they also had little effect on factory owners, they did provide a sense of unity for laborers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brianna's reference to the robber barons of the 19th century, known for the low wages and horrible working conditions they subjected their workers to. When considering the significant social and economic gap between America's wealthiest men and the poorest members of the working class, one can only expect that their companies were barely affected by strikes and that the owners themselves had little compassion for American's that seemed to be so far away in terms of the social ladder.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLabor unions attempted to achieve reasonable working hours and wages, and better conditions overall. It gave exploited and 'disposable' workers a sense of protection against their employers. These groups had no immediate effect. Strikes and rebellions were ineffective, since workers were easily replaced, and violence was quashed by authorities. However, in the long run, this collective effort of workers did improve the situation for many. When workers' complaints were publicized, more support was gained. Some smaller factories eventually compromised, if minimally. Large corporations, like those of Carnegie and Rockefeller were too powerful to be affected.
ReplyDeletei agree with many of the earlier comments that labor unions really didnt have that much effect of large corporations in the 19th century. It wasnt really until the 20th century that labor unions really made a difference in the worklife of middle class america
ReplyDeleteLabor unions promoted better care of employees, bettering working conditions across the country in the future. However, during the time they were formed, they did not have a great effect. The workers were seen as expendable, and easily replaceable with the hundreds of other immigrants in search of work- most of whom were willing to work for less pay than the previous workers.
ReplyDeleteI like Brianna's point about the robber barons. It was work overseers like those three that refused to allow their workers better conditions, always in search of the most cost efficient deal.
ReplyDeleteAJ made a pertinent point concerning the elemental role of the AFL and Knights of Labor in the achievements of labor unions against large corporations.
ReplyDelete