Labor Unions During The Gilded Age

The United States’s industrialization lead to a great boom in both economic and population growth, allowing businesses to flourish. With more money and workers at their disposal, employers often would often mistreat workers, suddenly cutting their wages or firing them. With only profit in mind, industries eventually became monopolized and the conditions of workers only worsened. Defenseless and barely able to survive, laborers soon found power in uniting with each other, leading to the establishment of American labor unions during the Gilded Age. They provided workers with necessary protection from their employers’ capricious decisions, and while their presence elicited fear in business owners, unions eventually bettered the standard of living for the American proletarian through compromise.

Without labor unions, workers were completely at the mercy of their employers, who then abused them and treated them as wage slaves.

Corporations looking for cheap labor, such as railroad, mining, or oil companies, often hired Italian immigrants to do their work. S. Merlino, a New York journalist alive during the Gilded Age, explained this tendency in his account Labor Contractors and Italian Immigrants, writing that “[the contractor] finds in the market a large number of men entirely at his mercy, with not even the weak support of a promise to defend themselves against his greed” (Johnson 71). Employers took advantage of immigrant desperation by hiring them with low wages, no benefits, and no contract. Laborers seeking work would have to then choose between not having any money to support themselves or their family, or being paid an unfairly low amount of money and hoping that they will be able to

survive.

The formation of the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor in 1869, however, sets the stage for the creation of a third option for employees. The Knights of Labor were not the first labor union in the United States, but its significance stemmed from the fact that it was the first to unify skilled and unskilled laborers together for a common cause. Their only major success was during a railroad strike that went on from 1883 to 1884, which retracted a wage cut that business magnate Jay Gould instated. Despite the fact it was a lone victory, University of California historian G. William Domhoff writes in his essay The Rise and Fall of Labor Unions in the U.S. that “[the] local activists saw them as evidence of the potential power of unions and their strike weapon” (par. 21). While other strikes failed because of the violent tensions between union and employer, the results of that strike indicated that the collective had the strength to influence the businesses’ decisions and better the lives of the laborer.

The Order attempted to continue organizing strikes to introduce policies, such as the eight hour work day, to improve the lives of workers, yet the strife between workers and businesses halted any progress. They eventually met their demise during the Haymarket riot of 1886, but their mistakes allowed the more moderate American Federation of Labor to rise. The AFL structured itself so that it was not as fragmented as its predecessor, which meant that sub-unions conducted any sort of organized affair, rather than the AFL as a whole (Domhoff par. 28). The Federation also provided their members with benefits their employer could not, such as sickness, unemployment, and strike benefits, ensuring the loyalty of their members. With a restructured union, the AFL improved the quality of life for laborers without causing as much conflict as the Knights of Labor.

Despite the moderate stance of the AFL, employers continued to fear that allowing unions to exist would give too much power to the proletarian and dismantle businesses. N.F. Thompson, a representative of the Southern Industrial Convention and the Chamber of Commerce of Huntsville, testified in 1900 that “they are . . . creating antagonisms between [the laboring classes and the employing classes] whose mutuality of interests should be fostered and encouraged” (Johnson 93). While Thompson’s stance validly recognized how the Knights of Labor worsened relations between classes, the AFL’s interest in collective bargaining reflects that unions are willing to collaborate with their employers while still protecting their laborers. Collective bargaining, from the perspective of the business owner, narrowed down the wants of the laborer so that it was more practical and can be considered along with the needs of the business, according to G. William Domhoff (par. 46). In addition, it provided a peaceful means for laborers to exercise their needs without costing the business money, as even non-destructive strikes imposed replacement costs for new workers upon the employer. By being able to bargain with their superiors, union laborers were able to improve their wages, hours, and working conditions with the needs of their employers in mind.

Collective bargaining ensured that unions could work alongside their employers and still provide their members with benefits and protection. By learning from the errors of the Knights of Labor, the AFL was able to create a new, moderate union and seek such a balance. Businesses were unable to wield as much power as they had without unions, but the worker’s needs did not impede with their growth as much as they had anticipated. Through compromise, the AFL ensured that the working class was shielded from potential abuse from superiors while still allowing employers to maintain control over their businesses.