The Great Sit Down Strike and the Homestead Strike Comparison - Research Paper Example

?The Great Sit-down Strike and the Homestead Strike Compared The Great Sit-Down Strike The Great Sit-Down Strike is a successful strike compared to the Homestead Strike mainly because of the peaceful way the strike was conducted as well as the government’s attitude in tackling issues confronting workers. The great sit-down strike at General Motors (“GM”) which happened in the period of 1936-37, involved workers at several Flint plants, who sought to organize on behalf of the United Automobile Workers (“UAW”) (Antoine, 1900). The union completely paralyzed the production for forty-four days (Weinstone, 1), by occupying buildings and refusing to leave the plants (Antoine, 1900). The strike was able to attain goals meant for the benefit of the workers. They averted the reopening of the plants thus resulting in the recognition of their right to organize, a right which has been repeatedly denied by this corporation (Weinstone, 1). The union was formally recognized as the collective bargaining agency for its members in all the plants (Weinstone, 1). The union was able to put a stop to the open-shop system practiced by this American industry (Weinstone, 1). It was also able to successfully bargain wage increases for the GM workers and for the auto workers in other plants. Finally, it also successfully bargained “an agreement to open negotiations between the union and the corporation for the demands on wages, hours and working conditions” (Weinstone, 1). Aside from the above successes, the union was also able to resist and hold off forceful efforts to remove the sit-down strikers, who only left the plants when their conditions were met (Weinstone). Finally, this strike successfully endorsed “the policy of industrial unionism, of militant unionism and progressive leadership based upon rank-and-file democracy,” which confirmed that such system is “the only correct form of organization” that “can effectively meet and defeat the corporations of big capital” (Weinstone, 1). The tactics used by the union includes first by strategically locking themselves in, “making it difficult to dislodge them without the use of considerable force and numbers, while at the same time, by taking over the gates, they obtained the possibility of freely coming and going and thereby relieved the strain which they would otherwise have found a serious factor in their ‘voluntary imprisonment’” (Weinstone, 1). The workers went on shifts hence, were able to withstand continued stay inside the plants for a long time. They were also able to create a “complete and efficient organization” by setting up an elected strike committee, various sub-committees, captains, including health and sanitation, patrol and policing, trial committee” (Weinstone, 1). The elected strike committee was the one assigning particular duties to every worker which includes the “reception of visitors, guarding, and cleaning up” (Bliven, 377). Through this, they were able to utilize an effective strategy that heightened their awareness and control against any possible attacks against them (Weinstone, 1). The workers “barricaded themselves within the plants” and readied themselves to employ devices available to secure their positions within the plant” (Weinstone, 1). Their preparedness can be best illustrated in the following: covering “the windows with bullet-proof metal sheets” and at the same time a way wherein fire hoses could be placed to prevent “any gas or firearm attack”; systematizing and drilling squads in using water hoses; organizing “a police patrol” making rounds at given hours, to monitor “the movement of people in adjoining wings of the building” to prevent any “surprise attacks” (Weinstone, 1). The strikers also were said to hold “court every morning”, and those found guilty of inappropriate behavior such as “bringing liquor into the plant or circulating rumors” was removed from the plant (Lovett, 123). The workers could even “take classes in parliamentary procedure, collective bargaining, and public speaking” (Vorse, 39). There are also forms of entertainment and extra-curricular activities for the strikers (Bliven, 377 & Walker, 175). Women also had a role in the said strike as “the wives and mothers of the strikers formed a ‘Women's Emergency Brigade’” who safeguarded the men inside the plant from violence or attacks “by hired General Motors strikebreakers” (Vorse, 38). The women carried wooden clubs and were “dressed in galoshes, red arm bands, and red berets” (Life on the American Newsfront, 16-17). Another noticeable tactic which the union used is combining “the sitting down” method within the plant with an “outside car picket patrol” (Weinstone, 1). “Daily outside meetings” using “a public address system” further supplemented such tactic. There were also “large-scale demonstrations” which the union set up to address any critical situation, like evacuation threats resulting from an injunction (Weinstone, 1). Efforts to remove the workers by the corporation proved futile because of such effective “combination of an inside strike with outside mass mobilization” (Weinstone, 1). Finally, they also “combined a march from other plants as reinforcements for the main point of attack” (Weinstone, 1). Aside from the effective strategy of the union in preventing the company from dislodging them from where they are, the government’s attitude towards them was non-violent. Murphy, who was then the Governor, considered such action of the workers as illegal trespass and even called the National Guard “to maintain order” (Antoine, 1900). However, the Governor dissented to any bloodshed and even rejected the idea of using the Guard or State Police forcibly drive out the strikers (Fine, 298-99, 303). Michigan Governor Frank Murphy and Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (Fine, 233-312) intervened and Governor Murphy acted as a mediator between GM and the UAW (Antoine, 1900). Because of Governor Murphy’s proficient role in settling the issues, “the strike was eventually settled”, and the corporation accepted the UAW as the bargaining representative of the workers (Fine, 319-22). GM forged and agreement with UAW on February 11 promising “not to discriminate against employees on the basis of union membership,” and “promised to begin bargaining with the UAW” on its other demands (Fine, 304). The goal and the most important demand of recognizing the “UAW as the sole bargaining agent for its employees for a six-month period” was accepted and further reinforced in its letter to the Governor (Fine, 305). The Homestead Strike Unlike the Great Sit-Down Strike, the Homestead Strike of 1892 was violent and unsuccessful. The impetus for the strike was the attempt to break the union which represented “the highest skilled workers,” by Robber Baron Andrew Carnegie who threatened to have a pay cut of 18 percent against the workers (Libcom.org, 1). He even ordered the construction of “a 12 foot high fence” “around the plant – 3 miles in length – with 3 inch holes at shoulder height every 25 feet,” which indicated his plan of having “an armed fight with the workers” (Steven, 2005, website). Pinkerton “watchmen” were hired by the company and were armed “to recapture a plant seized by strikers (Uelmen, 1543). An ultimatum was given to workers for them to agree to the proposed “wage cut by June 24” or else be part of the mass layoffs (Libcom.org, 1). What the Amalgamated Union did was to establish “an Advisory Committee,” consisting of “five delegates from each lodge,” in order to prepare for the attacks of Carnegie (Libcom.org, 1). A meeting of 3,000 workers from both unionized and non-unionized workers agreed and “voted overwhelmingly to strike” (Libcom.org, 1). An Advisory Committee was created and was given the task of finding out the maneuvers of the company and to keep an eye on the possible “transport of Pinkerton goons by river boat from Pittsburgh” (Libcom.org, 1). The workers made rounds on the river by renting their vessels and guarded the river banks within 10 miles as well. Every road falling within the file mile radius from where the strike is situated, were also blockaded (Libcom.org, 1). With these, the workers practically controlled the town as they have taken on “the authority over the water, gas, and electricity facilities, shutting down the saloons, maintaining order and proclaiming ad hoc laws” (Libcom.org, 1). When the Pinkertons came consisting of around 300 persons on barges, the armed strikers consisting of around 10,000 men also met them (Libcom.org, 1). This resulted in an “armed confrontation” (Libcom.org, 1). Both the Pinkertons and strikers suffered casualties Libcom.org, 1). The violence ended on 6 July 1892 (Johnson, 1) but strike carried on for 4 months (Steven, 2005, website). The federal troops of about 8,000 men (Johnson, 1) confronted the strikers and “brought in to crush the struggle” (Libcom.org, 1). Such deployment was ordered by the Governor of Pennsylvania (Pbs.org, 1). Martial law was imposed on the town of Homestead which led back to a control of the mill (Libcom.org, 1). As a result some “160 strikers were arrested and charged with murder and assault” (Libcom.org, 1). The jury in Pittsburgh however acquitted the said workers (Libcom.org, 1). A strike leader by the name of Hugh O’Donnell, was charged with treason but was eventually acquitted (Libcom.org, 1). However, he was again arrested and tried for another crime which was murder (Libcom.org, 1). He again was acquitted for the said charge. The assault charge was also dismissed against him (Libcom.org, 1). Although the union continually supported the strikers “facing legal charges,” these however depleted the resources of the union (Johnson,1). Hence, by November of that year, “the union and union workers were running out of money and supplies” (Johnson,1). Most of the workers attempted to get back to their jobs which however were eventually filled with “scab workers” or were already blacklisted as a result of their “involvement in the strike” (Johnson,1). Thus, only about “800 men were able to get their job in the mill” (Johnson, 1). The violent strike and public opinion were detrimental to the cause of the union which eventually led for the Homestead mills to be unorganized or without a union (Johnson, 1). Conclusion Both unions in the Great Sit-Down Strike and the Homestead Strike organized themselves to achieve their purpose of bargaining better terms for the workers. However, the system adapted by the Great Sit-Down Strike achieved greater control over the plants in a peaceful manner forcing the company to give in to the union’s terms. The Homestead Strike however became violent causing casualties and the charges brought before the strikers involved were detrimental to their continued control over the mills. The government’s attitude toward the strikers, were also relevant in that the goals of the union were better achieved when the government intervened in the peaceful mediation displayed in the Great Sit-Down Strike as opposed to what occurred in the Homestead Strike. Works Cited Antoine, Theodore, J. “Justice Frank Murphy and American Labor Law.” Michigan Law Review volume 100. 2002: 1900. Westlaw. Bliven, Bruce. “Sitting Down in Flint.” New Republic volume 89. 1937: 377. Westlaw. Fine, Sidney. “Frank Murphy: The New Deal Years.” Chicago: University Press of Chicago. 1979, issue 20. Johnson, Stephanie (2008). Battle of the Monongahela: Homestead Steel, 1892. Retrieved on 25 April 2011 from http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/Homestead.html Libcom.org (2005). 1892: The Homestead Strike. Retrieved on 25 April 2011 from http://libcom.org/history/1892-the-homestead-strike Life on the American Newsfront: In Auto Strike Some Women Talk While Others . . . Arm with Clubs and Break Windows of Chevrolet Plant. Life, Feb. 15, 1937, pp. 16-17. Lovett, Robert Morss. “A G.M. Stockholder Visits Flint.” Nation volume 144. 1937: 123.Westlaw. Pbs.org. (1999). The Homestead Strike. Retrieved on 25 April 2011 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande04.html Uelmen, Gerald F. (2003). Fighting Fire With Fire: A Reflection On The Ethics Of Clarence Darrow. Fordham Law Review, volume 71. Vorse, Mary Heaton. “The Emergency Brigade at Flint.” New Republic volume 90. 1937: 39. Westlaw. Walker, Charles R. “Flint Faces Civil War.” Nation volume 144. 1937: 175. Westlaw. Weinstone, William. The Great Sit Down Strike. Workers Library Publishers. Retrieved on 25 April 2011 from http://www.mltranslations.org/us/archive/sitdown.htm Read More