David Von Drehle's Triangle: The Fire That Changed America

Throughout the American labor movement, there have been consistent interest groups involved with instituting unions and those advocating for their destruction. No labor movement has succeeded without battle between groups that desire control. The early 20th Century is no different--with the massive influx of immigrants and quick birth of the industrial revolution, the years 1900-1920 truly exemplified the conflict between workers and companies. This essay plans to detail the motives and tactics of four central groups fighting for control of worker’s rights by using the text Triangle: The Fire That Changed America by David von Drehle.
The first of the groups, the most obvious, were the organizers and immigrants working directly with or inside of the companies being lobbied. This demographic were the

Eastern European, usually Jewish, immigrants who made the trans-Atlantic passage to escape religious persecution and systemic violence, and Italians who did the same to find economic stability. In Downtown Manhattan, the old residents of the neighborhood--mostly German and Irish immigrants--were leaving the area and as a result made room for these two new groups (p. 29). Eastern European women were ready to work and were used to making executive decisions about working outside of the home. In contrast, Italian women did not have the freedom in their households to make their own work decisions; Italian customs dictated that the head of the household was to make the choice for their female family member to work or stay home (p. 60). Despite this cultural divide, however, both groups were eager to make their mark on the world of labor.
Clara Lemlich, a Ukrainian woman, joined the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and formed the Local 25, a union of female garment makers. The Women’s Trade Union League stepped in to provide encouragement as well. This was in 1906 and was essentially the beginning of garment worker’s struggles for safe and fair working conditions. With strikes becoming more common, companies felt it necessary to keep production flowing and prompted the Greater New York Detective Agency to offer their services in 1909 as escorts for strikebreakers and as muscle to make an example of their disruptive workers (p. 11). That same year, almost 1500 tailors staged a walk out. The looming threat of economic depression (as there had been two in recent years, one in 1892 and another in 1907), cramped work spaces and long shifts, along with owners demanding inhuman production rates set the perfect climate for immigrants and their respective unions to (justifiably) rebel.
A second group responded to the bold actions carried out by garment workers as well; upper class women’s suffrage advocates began to take an interest in the labor movement and the increasing number of strikes. A woman named Anne Morgan, daughter of J.P. Morgan, was quoted as saying “We can’t live our lives without doing something to help them” (p. 72) and orchestrated a luncheon with Elizabeth Marbury to hear the concerns of the garment workers. They listened to the tales of life in the factories and then asked Mary Drier, leader of the WTUL, for a list of things they would need to further the cause. She said only one thing was essential: money to rally with. This is when massive garment union strike funds began; at this meeting alone, almost $1,300 was raised (approximately $20,000 in today’s currency). Morgan’s contributions were said to be much larger. At this point there was no doubt the high priced support of these upper class women was beneficial.
Soon, another society woman joined to support the front line of garment strikers. Alva Belmont became engaged in the labor movement; she took up collections in the name of the WTUL/Local 25 efforts and helped to organize strikes in the community with Morgan. As she was connected to the wealthy Vanderbilt family, she used both her familial ties as well as her financial standing to secure a more prominent voice for the union women in society. Furthermore, she offered her mansion as bond for strikers that were sent to jail for their uprisings (p. 76). With her aid, as well as with input from other wealthy women and socialites, the shirtwaist strikers were receiving much needed attention, guidance, and financial support. WTUL speakers were going on missions from state to state, promoting their hard work, and college women were ready to assist the strikers in their endeavors at every turn; students from Wellesley College were toying with the idea of founding a striker-staffed shirtwaist factory and then buying the first thousand blouses made (p. 74). The rich women were, at this point, a godsend.
Soon enough, however, criticism and ulterior motives arose amidst the rallying cries of the upper class activists. Some radical strikers felt that the presence of socialites was a hindrance to the cause; the idea that wealthy women were getting positive press for their roles in the labor movement instead of the suffering immigrant workers being imprisoned and beaten for their resistance was a tragedy. Without any true action being taken, such as creating fair-trade shops or strong unions, these high class women were simply flaunting their money and intertwining their own causes (women’s voting rights, for example) into the labor movement. The socialist journal The Call felt similarly to the naysayers. A woman named Serber Malkiel is quoted in the journal as saying the fancy luncheon was ridiculous as the, “bejeweled, befurred, belaced and begowned audience” stood in contrast to the, “ten wage slaves, some of them mere children” (p. 78). Surely the sight was one that reeked of pretentious hypocrisy. The donations that were supposedly collected for the strikers were also criticized as the shirtwaist strikers never received them--their rents and bills went unpaid, food was not on the table at home. For the upper class women, radical worker ideology was surely a threat. In addition to the already negative circumstances surrounding the aid Morgan, Belmont, Marbury and others provided, some of the same women were becoming disenchanted with the “extreme radical attitudes” that the strikers had. For the upper class women, any socialist ideology was surely a threat.
The third group vying for control, factory business men, was also threatened by the amount of striker radicalism.

Two of the major parts in the history of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire were the owners of the factory, Max Blanck and Isaac Harris. Like many other factory owners, both of the men immigrated to the U.S. during the great wave of Jewish emigration. They ran shops in which they barely knew their employees (as the turnover rate was high). During the trial the two owners even noted that they had no idea how many women were working in their shops as “day to day, new faces always arriving, old faces gone without ever catching their attention” (p. 273). They were solely concerned with production and were staunchly against laborer rebellion and negotiation. Blank and Harris hired strikebreakers and men to assault strikers and bribed police (p. 4). As a response to union action, the men eventually formed their own in-house union; the workers, of course, were dissatisfied with this establishment as unions run by factory owners are logically working against the interest of the workers (not to mention the leaders of the union were relatives of either owner) (p.

49).
Blanck and Harris embodied the stereotype of uncaring and money driven owners. The lengths to which they went to keep production rates high and shifts long were not uncommon however, as many factory owners of the time acted similarly. Though unfortunate, these two factory owners blatantly expressed their desire to control their shops (and ultimately the climate of the labor movement) through their uncompromising and miserly behavior. The Triangle fire trial itself illustrated this perfectly--they hired the best lawyer they could afford and made sure that they took no responsibility for their actions.
The last most prominent group attempting to assert control over the garment worker movement were politicians, including those sitting in high positions at Tammany Hall. Tammany Hall, a political party in New York City, was often associated with corruption and swaying the results of election polls. The officials in the party, like Charles Murphy and Tim Sullivan, actively offered bribes for election votes; they would throw parties for city residents, help with funeral costs, extort money from local businesses, and collude with the police (p. 22-23). They had such a strong hold on the city that in one particular election, Democrats won in opposition of Republicans--388 to 4 in a specific area (p. 24).
There is no doubt that their political influence was a driving force for the entire city. In fact, this was something that one garment activist was acutely aware of; a woman named Francis Perkins sought the advice of a consultant to Tammany Hall named Al Smith. An incredibly bright and seemingly insightful man, Smith informed Perkins of when a bill she proposed would be struck down in appeals or when Murphy was just not interested in her proposals. He was the insider for the garment workers on the outside. In addition, they had extensive surveillance measures around the city. Tammany Hall’s leader, Charles Murphy, employed common men to keep tabs on the events in the city. He learned through them, and his spies reported on the actions of the garment workers with increasing frequency (pg. 33).
Moreover, other politicians were suspiciously negligent in the wake of the fire as well as during strikes. Political figures, like the Mayor of New York City, were very quiet about the tumultuous battle garment women had been facing and were continuing to fight; approximately one month after the Triangle fire broke out, state politicians were absent from the discourse about factory reform (one headline stated the loss of interest in the workers’ plight, albeit not on the front page) (p. 189). A man named Meyer London alleged that the vast amount of support from the public, whether in sentiment or donations, would not lead to meaningful changes in the political climate or law due to corruption.
Unfortunately, London’s prediction seemed to be the case. Governor John A. Dix said, “I find I am powerless to take the initiative in an inquiry” (p. 184) and the Mayor considered visiting the scene of the fire but reneged without a reason. Another politician sent his opinion through a middle man--he was on vacation and did not seem to want to deal with the controversy at hand. The political negligence from both Tammany representatives and state politicians was abhorrent but also allowed them to bring their desires to fruition; inaction ensured that nothing would be done to help the workers.
Each group, whether it was the rich advocates, business men, nion workers, or politicians, worked to sway legislature in their favor. Despite their differing agendas, each demographic was alike in their need to control the garment workers and Triangle fire situation and went to great lengths to transition mere agenda into action. Though on opposing sides, the industrious nature of both the union women and business men, as well as the societal power of politicians and the affluent suffragists served as great motivators for their individual causes. It is, however, a shame that none of the respective parties were able to coexist peacefully and meaningfully. The constant tension became a drama in and of itself and was detrimental to the plight of honest workers, just as it is in present day.