More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on historical development of trade unions
Essay on historical development of trade unions
The industrial age andrew carnegie
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the strength of the U.S. economy began transitioning from agricultural to industry. A variety of factors sparked this industrial revolution, but the genius industrial leaders, particularly Andrew Carnegie, allowed big business to take over and dominate the economy. As evidenced in Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business by Harold C. Livesay, Carnegie mastered and understood the organizational structures and technological factors necessary to run a profitable business. However, he did not have the best relationship with his workers or labor unions. Andrew Carnegie’s success and influence paved the way for the sustained dominance of big business in the American economy. Carnegie did not have …show more content…
In the past, some businesses did not estimate their costs and would have no idea whether they would have profit or loss at the end of the year. Thanks to his experience at the Pennsylvania Railroad, Carnegie understood the importance of cost control. Tracking costs led to increased accountability because Carnegie could discover, “who saved material, who wasted it, and who produced the best results” (95). Knowing costs also allowed Carnegie to confidently charge low prices, understanding they would produce a profit. Additionally, he thought that if he kept costs low, profits would take care of themselves. One technique used to slash costs was speeding up individual operations to produce more goods per dollar of capital. Another technique was reducing labor costs while sustaining current production. These practices revolutionized big business because they began to focus on cutting excess costs that were hurting profits. Cost management improved the efficiency of labor and profits of …show more content…
Unfortunately, Carnegie and his cost cutting ways did not sit well with his workers. He made wages dependent on steel prices, meaning when prices went up, wages went up and vice versa. After he pushed Captain Bill Jones to cut wages, Jones warned him to “leave good enough alone. Don’t think of any further reductions” (145). Carnegie became so obsessed with keeping costs as low as possible, he didn’t consider that lower wages might affect the quality of his labor. Additionally Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick wanted to eliminate the labor union in a bargaining agreement. As a result, the workers went on strike. Carnegie wanted to, “always shut down and suffer. Let them decide by vote when decide to go to work” (153). Neither side budging resulted in the Homestead Strike of 1892. This strike became deadly when Frick called in Pinkerton agents to replace the work of the striking laborers. Once the laborers saw the Pinkertons, battle ensued and four guards died. Poor treatment of workers and subsequent strikes were common during the industrial revolution because many large companies focused exclusively on profits and not their workers. Workers and businesses rarely avoided conflict during the industrial
At the Homestead Steel Works outside Pittsburgh, which had been purchased by Carnegie in 1883, the chairman blamed the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers for low production, and with the expiry of the collective bargaining agreement approaching, he saw an opportunity to reduce the union’s power. Carnegie, who was an open supporter of unions, nevertheless agreed with Frick in the case of Homestead, because he considered AA to be a corrupt organization that did not properly represent the workers. In fact, only about 800 of the 3,800 employees at Homestead were members of AA (Krass 277).
Andrew Carnegie, the monopolist of the steel industry, was one of the worst of the Robber Barons. Like the others, he was full of contradictions and tried to bring peace to the world, but only caused conflicts and took away the jobs of many factory workers. Carnegie Steel, his company, was a main supplier of steel to the railroad industry. Working together, Carnegie and Vanderbilt had created an industrial machine so powerful, that nothing stood in its path. This is much similar to how Microsoft has monopolized the computer software
Andrew Carnegie, was a strong-minded man who believed in equal distribution and different forms to manage wealth. One of the methods he suggested was to tax revenues to help out the public. He believed in successors enriching society by paying taxes and death taxes. Carnegie’s view did not surprise me because it was the only form people could not unequally distribute their wealth amongst the public, and the mediocre American economy. Therefore, taxations would lead to many more advances in the American economy and for public purposes.
middle of paper ... ... as farmers became more conscious of prices rising to transport their goods, they were forced to find other means of transportation to distribute their goods. Even though these men attempted to build a stable foundation for America to grow on, their negative aspects dramatically outweighed the positive. Even though Andrew Carnegie donated his fortunes to charity, he only acquired the money through unjustifiable actions. As these industrialists continued to monopolize companies through illegal actions, plutocracy- government controlled by the wealthy, took control of the Constitution.
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute to the idea of inequality and how it is not likely for the poor to be of equal status with the wealthy. Furthermore, Carnegie views wealth and poverty as a reciprocative relation. He does not necessarily state that the wealthy and poor are equal, but he believes that the wealthy are the ones who “should use their wisdom, experiences, and wealth as stewards for the poor” (textbook, 489). Ultimately, the consequences of
True, Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller may have been the most influential businessmen of the 19th century, but was the way they conducted business proper? To fully answer this question, we must look at the following: First understand how Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller changed the market of their industries. Second, look at the similarities and differences in how both men achieved domination. Third and lastly, Look at how both men treated their workers and customers in order achieve the most possible profit for their company.
If no contract was reached, Carnegie Steel would cease to recognize the union. Carnegie formally approved Frick's tactics on May 4. Then Frick offered a slightly better wage scale and advised the Superintendent to tell the workers, "We do not care whether a man belongs to a union or not, nor do we wish to interfere. He may belong to as many unions or organizations as he chooses, but we think our employees at Homestead Steel Works would fare much better working under the system in vogue at Edgar Thomson and Duquesne."
Industrial development of the late 18th century (around 1865-1900) is often characterized by it’s affluent, aggressive and monopolistic industrial leaders of the likes of men such as Andrew Carnegie, William H. Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller. Due to their ruthless strategies, utilization of trusts, and exploitation of cheap labor in order to garner nearly unbreakable monopolies and massive sums of wealth, these men are often labelled as “robber barons”. At the same time, they are also often referred to as “industrial statements” for their organization, and catalyst of, industrial development; not to forget their generous contributions to the betterment of American society. Therefore, whether or not their aforementioned advances in industry were undertaken for their own personal benefits, one cannot ignore their positive effects on America. Thus, one can conclude that not only were the captains of industry both “robber barons” and “industrial statements”, but that that these two labels, in fact, go hand-in-hand.
In the early 1900s, many business leaders were responsible for bringing about the sudden economic prosperity in the United States, using their knowledge, and business techniques. Due to their actions and business methods, it’s obvious the leaders of big business were Robber Barons in the early 1900s. They used cutthroat practices in order to succeed, and they didn’t give workers the rights they deserved.
In Harold C. Livesay’s Andrew Carnegie and the rise of Big Business, Andrew Carnegie’s struggles and desires throughout his life are formed into different challenges of being the influential leader of the United States of America. The book also covers the belief of the American Dream in that people can climb up the ladder of society by hard work and the dream of becoming an influential citizen, just as Carnegie did.
While Carnegie held the aptitude for greatness regardless of his surroundings, without free enterprise, he would not have even had to option to take a chance or to explore new ideas. In regulated economies, not only is the currency and producer-consumer relationship controlled by the government, many times the media is as well, as not to create a system in which citizens long for something else. In this case Carnegie would not have had the access to the learning resources that he did, and would never have learned how to use a telegraph machine. There would have been no room for lateral growth, and the world as we know it may not exist without Carnegie’s courage and yearning to better himself and the world.
The late 19th century and early 20th century, dubbed the Gilded Age by writer Mark Twain, was a time of great growth and change in every aspect of the United States, and even more so for big business. It was this age that gave birth to many of the important modern business practices we take for granted today, and those in charge of business at the time were considered revolutionaries, whether it was for the good of the people or the good of themselves.
Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland in 1835. His father, Will, was a weaver and a follower of Chartism, a popular movement of the British working class that called for the masses to vote and to run for Parliament in order to help improve conditions for workers. The exposure to such political beliefs and his family's poverty made a lasting impression on young Andrew and played a significant role in his life after his family immigrated to the United States in 1848. Andrew Carnegie amassed wealth in the steel industry after immigrating from Scotland as a boy. He came from a poor family and had little formal education.
Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.
First of all, I believe there are some good rationales behind his thoughts. I agree that administration should be in charge of decisions for the business. I believe these decisions should be made by a founder that has the best interests of the business at heart. One that has education and knowledge of business practices and makes good decisions, but also, one that holds the employees interests to a high standard as well. This is where I disagree with Mr. Carnegie’s actions. His arguments,