Essay On Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

On March 25, 1911, a fire broke out at a Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in the Asch building in Manhattan, and 146 workers died. When taking into consideration that the immediate causes of the deaths were insecure fire prevention facilities in the factory and coercive work disciplines, the fire, commonly known as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, became an evidence of the wretched life that American working class experienced during industrialization.

In particular, the main victims of this disaster were Jewish female workers who were the majority of the New York City’s garment workers and suffered from harsh labor conditions such as low wages, unstable job security, and excessive workload. In spite of the fact that they had already expressed

a strong dissatisfaction with the labor condition through a massive demonstration of the ‘Uprising of 20,000’ two years ago, the Triangle Fire evidently proved that such demands were virtually unaccepted.
Immediately after the fire, the protest of the working class intensified again. Local 25, the branch of waistmakers in the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union (ILGWU) and the leading group of ‘Uprising of 20,000’ , organized a committee to prepare the funerals for seven unidentified fire victims and planned to show the demonstration of workers to the public. About 400,000 people attended the funeral on April 5, 1911, and marched in the New York City. A banner appeared from the march, ‘We demand fire protection,’ represented the imminence of the working class to protect themselves from the exploitation and injustices.
Additionally, the progressives, who had set their sights on resolving economic depression and class inequality using scientific methods and moral reforms, were not unable to overlook the impact of the Triangle Fire. It was shocking evidence that had clearly shown the structural contradictions in the American industrial society, the immorality of the capitalists, and the subhuman conditions of the working class hidden under the industrial accomplishment of the New York City. For these reasons, after the fire, the progressive activists of the New York City began to criticize the exploitation of labor and support the victims. In particular, the Women’s Trade Union League (WTUL), a progressive women organization that had a central position in the campaign for organizing and educating female workers, formed the Committee of Twenty-Five on March 26, composed of religious leaders, scholars, and social activists. The committee demanded to the state authority for more active intervention on working safety.
To the Democratic Party’s Tammany Hall as well, which had so far dominated the political power of New York, these public opinions worked as the pressure to respond with urgency. The political support base of Tammany Hall, sustained by ballot-rigging and vote-buying from new immigrants, had been diminishing from the late 19th century due to the introduction of secret ballot and enactments of new laws to regulate immigration. In addition, the newly emerged Socialist Party eroded the political dominance of the Democratic Party by gaining popularity among the urban working class, which had been another one of the Democratic Party’s major political supporters. After all, Tammany Hall had to change its political strategy to future-oriented legislative activities to renew the negative image made by the previous plutocracy and acquire new public support.
As a result of the various demands for labor reforms amplified at all walks of life in the New York City after the Triangle Fire, the New York State established the Factory Investigating Commission on June 30, 1911 with the approval of Governor John Alden Dix. The FIC possessed the right to investigate the existing condition of factories and associated laws that affected the health and safety of workers, and to implement remedial legislation if the investigation proved risk factors that caused peril to the life and health of workers. Indeed, the special investigations on the working conditions were already preceded by other states during the Progressive Era, e.g. in Illinois and Massachusetts. However, emphasizing that legislative reform should be permanent, concise, and comprehensive, the FIC criticized prior investigations that they brought about little real improvement and no great reliance could be placed upon, since they were just momentary and spasmodic. As shown here, the FIC’s activities focused on examining the current industrial state of New York State and reforming the present problems with a holistic legislation. In addition, they were guaranteed the power to appoint their counsel and assistants, compel the attendance of witnesses, produce book and papers, and thus, could implement independent labor reform without being restrained by external interference.
The major forces leading the reform were the young and emerging politicians from Tammany Hall.

The chairman of the FIC, New York State Senator Robert F. Wagner, and the vice chairman, Assemblyman Alfred Emanuel ‘Al’ Smith, were representatives of rising politicians who epitomized the change of Tammany Hall. With the powerful support of Charles Francis Murphy, the boss of Tammany Hall, they were making progress for being the future leaders of the New York Democratic Party. Smith already had been renowned as the spokesperson for Tammany Hall, and Wagner took the President of the Senate in 1910. To Wagner and Smith, the posterities of immigrants, the FIC was a good opportunity to learn the specific plan of reforms and ameliorate the contradictions which they had experienced in the American society. In addition, by forming a partnership with the progressives and actively incorporating their demands into the political sphere, the New York Democratic Party could imprint in the public an impression that they had transformed from the corrupted political party into an innovative force capable of protecting working

class.
The tasks to carry out practical investigations and design specific programs of the reform were up to progressive activists. Tammany Hall, who felt the necessity to respond to public opinions demanding a refined industrial society, regarded the progressives who tried to ameliorate the evil of capitalism by moral and institutional reforms as the most suitable collaborators. The member organization of the FIC further clarified this intention of the Democratic Party, which tried to mobilize separately engaging activists after the Triangle Fire under one organization. For example, Mary Dreier, who represented the progressive women’s movement as the President of the New York Women’s Trade Union League, was appointed as a commissioner. George Price and H.F.J Porter, both of whom were already undertaking the inspection on the sanitary conditions of factories at the ‘Joint Board of Sanitary Control’ established under a coalition between the ILGWU and the ‘Cloak, Suit, and Skirt Manufacturers’ Protective Association’, supervised field investigations in the FIC. In addition, Frances Perkins, who was the secretary of the National Consumer League and also known as a lobbyist that had pushed a bill that limited the working hours of women and children to 54 hours per week, was appointed to an advisory committee. In these ways, the activities of those who had already exhibited strong aspiration for the labor reform could be transplanted to the FIC and thus provide a strong impetus to them.
However, progressive reformers and politicians were not the only supporters of the reform. Samuel Gompers, the president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), was also included in the FIC’s commissioners. Although AFL and Samuel Gompers had a hostile attitude toward immigrant and unskilled workers, their participation was significant as the whole American society still perceived them as the symbol of the working class. In addition, they could not overlook the tremendous disaster of the Triangle Fire and the poor conditions of workers, since its impact might threaten the whole American workers and not just a particular group of immigrant workers.
Additionally, the WTUL was able to connect the reform of FIC with the working class in a different context with that of Samuel Gompers, by appointing female working class activists as the inspectors of the FIC.

To apprehend the actual conditions of labor in factories, their legislative activities had to accompany large-scale field investigation that demanded a large number of assistants. In the process, social activists from garment workers, such as Clara Lemlich, an executive board member of the Local 25 and the leader of the uprising of 20,000, and Rose Schneiderman, the WTUL’s labor activist who was getting a name by organizing female workers, were able to participate in the campaign of the FIC. Moreover, the FIC held public hearings to provide the opportunities for ordinary workers to testify about their labor conditions. During the year of 1912, it listened to 250 witnesses at 37 hearings and recorded testimonies of 3,500 pages. The FIC adopted many ordinary workers as well as experts as the witnesses of the hearing, and they could inform the public of their poor working conditions and gain social sympathy. As indicated by such active participation, the driving force of the FIC’s reform was not only emanated from the upper-middle class progressives but also rank-and-file workers and working class activists. Their aspirations for labor reform, triggered by the Triangle Fire, endeavored to create substantial alterations in the industrial society of New York under the

FIC’s protective legislations based on the cooperation with the Democratic Party.