WORKERS' RIGHTS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF MACHINERY IN THE MEN'S CLOTHING

INDUSTRY

The substitution of machinery for hand processes in industry has always created a strong and resentful opposition from the workers affected by the change. Where the workers were unorganized, such opposition was sometimes spontaneous and destructive, but more often it was passive and of necessity shortlived. However, where trade unions had secured a fair degree of control, opposition to the introduction of machinery became an organized effort of serious concern to the employer.

Opposition to machinery was based chiefly upon a fear, later substantiated, that the security of the job would be greatly endangered. The greater productivity of the machine causes an immediate displacement of many workers. Furthermore, there existed the fear that the earnings would be reduced. The worker knew, moreover, that the machine industry, with its minute subdivision of labor, would rob the job of its skill and deprive the formerly skilled artisan of all monopoly in the "mysteries" of the trade. It would throw the job open to a large class of unskilled workers.

These effects, resulting in organized opposition to the introduction of machinery, manifested themselves either in a refusal to work on the machine or in a refusal to instal products made by it. Where this direct-action policy failed, a different one was assumed which accepted the machine process, but resulted in limiting and regulating its use. Under this policy we find regulations stipulating that the machine should be operated by union men only; that it should be run a specified number of hours per day. The number of workers to operate each machine was also limited and the compensation so fixed that the earnings of the machine worker would approximate those of the hand worker.

It is the purpose of this paper to examine the attitude of rep

resentative trade unions toward the introduction of machinery, the change of their tactics to meet new circumstances, and to compare these attitudes with that in an industry which is highly institutionalized and which guarantees to its workers certain fundamental rights-the clothing industry.

When the stone planer was introduced in the stonecutting industry about 1890, the Chicago local of the Stonecutters' Union1 asked unsuccessfully for the insertion into the agreement with the Chicago Cut Stone Contractors of provisions limiting the hours during which the machines were to be operated, and requiring that the planers were to be operated by union men. As long as few machines were in use, the union did not take a firmer attitude, but in 1896 the union insisted that the planers should be run not more than eight hours a day, and a three months' strike ensued on this issue. The union was partly successful, and a provision was adopted that the machine should be used not more than eight hours a day and six days a week. A further provision stipulated that the laborers employed on the planers were to be displaced by union stonecutters. In 1898 the Chicago union demanded that for every planer operated the contractor should employ at least four union stonecutters with hammer and chisel. The strike which followed resulted in an agreement providing for the employment of two stonecutters to every single planer and four to a double planer. The success of the Chicago union in prohibiting the use of the stone planer induced unions in other cities to adopt a similar policy, and demands were made prohibiting the shipping of machine-cut stone into cities where the union was opposed to its use. In 1900 the national union advised the locals to do everything in their power to prevent the introduction of the machine in their jurisdictions. Where machine planers were used union stonecutters refused to complete the necessary hand finishing, and where the union possessed jurisdiction, it refused to set up stone cut by machines. These

1 "Stonecutters' Union and the Stone Planer," J. E. Barnett, Journal of Political Economy, XXIV, 421.

2 Stonecutters' Journal (1900), Supp., p. 15.

restrictive rules were in operation for many years, but in spite of them the machine increased in use. Where the union was successful in preventing its use, the employers were successful in circumventing the rule against shipping planer-cut stone to cities opposed to its use. Soon this rule broke down and was repealed by the national union. Thereafter each local was permitted to legislate on the subject in the light of its own circumstances.

The failure of this positive restriction policy led to the recognition of the machine and the adoption of a negative restriction policy in order to protect the union. Thus there were rules restricting the number of hours the planer might be operated, requiring that the machine operators should be union men, demanding the employment of a minimum number of stonecutters with each machine, and in no case was the planer to be used for more hours per day than those worked by the hand cutters.

The enforcement of these rules was impracticable because many of the planers were used at the quarry and the finished stone shipped to the cities. In 1906 the rule requiring the employment of union stonecutters on the machine was repealed, and the doors of the union were thrown open to machine operators. All rules relating to the introduction of the planer machine were abolished by 1908.

The policy of opposition and restriction had apparently gone too far to be reconciled to the policy of support later adopted.

3

The International Molders' Union adopted a policy in many respects similar to that of the stonecutters, and it led to equally disastrous results. The introduction of the molding machines was at first entirely ignored by the union. It felt that nothing could replace the skill of the hand workers. In very rare instances were there attempts to prohibit the use of the machine. When it began to increase in use, the attitude of the workers changed, and they agreed to operate the machines provided there was union control of piece prices. The union workers endeavored to make the machine as unprofitable as possible in order to restrict its use. The leadership of this union was more 'F. D. Stockton, The International Molders' Union, "Johns Hopkins University Studies," XXXIX, 190.

alive to the dangers of the situation, and in 1907 a more liberal policy is perceived. They urged that the members of the union should agree to work on the machines with the aim of bringing out their full capacity provided satisfactory agreements as to wages could be made. The organization would be in a position where it could hope to control the machine and prevent the trade from sinking to the level of unskilled labor. "If the old-line prejudices were not dropped, the machine would control the union." The convention voted to "advise members to accept jobs upon any molding machine where the opportunity is offered, and to endeavor to bring out their best possibilities, and to bring the question of machine operation and control to the attention of the various foundrymen and associations" (Constitution, 1899). The future policy of the union was to establish prices over the molding-machine operation and to secure recognition of its jurisdiction over the operation of the machine.*

This new policy, in spite of the enthusiasm of the officers, failed to bear fruit, however. The members had so long been in the habit of considering the machine an evil that they could not readily be altered by the sudden change of front by the national officers. Moreover, the employers had been accustomed to use unskilled laborers at the machines, and found them satisfactory. The union had to reckon with a powerful employers' association, the National Founders' Association, which declared that "it is a matter of shop practice outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement, and molding-machine operators will not be considered molders, in any agreement entered into."

The arbitrary removal of the machine issue from the scope of the agreement was of advantage to the employers, and this the union was soon to realize. A seven months' strike on the machine issue led to no definite result, and the employers introduced the machine without consulting the union. There is little doubt that the molding machine and the resulting prevalence of International Molders' Journal (1899), pp. 75, 101.

* Proceedings National Founders' Association (1900), p. 35.

"Founders and Molders and Molding Machine," Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXXII, 293.

non-union unskilled handy-men molders had made possible the open shop in the foundry. Similar to the stonecutters' union, the policy of this union came to recognize the machine, and to secure the organization of the machine molder and the operation of the molding machine by union men and apprentices.

The iron- and steel-workers were never strong enough to attempt any resistance to the introduction of the machine in the actual production of steel. The use of the Bessemer process of steel manufacturing had completely changed the relative fighting strength between the union and the employers. The former was unable to resist the reduction of wages. The union agreed to reduce rates, provided the machine used had actually reduced the amount of work. In regard to the automatic machine for nail-making, the union attempted to limit the number of machines one man might operate. This was accomplished by the union's definition of what constitutes a job, and then laying down the rule that no member might hold more than one job (Constitution, 1884). A job was limited to the operation of four machines, but the provision could not be enforced because of excess production leading to too many men competing for the decreased number of jobs. If the employer could not drive a bargain with the union that each man operate eight or ten machines, he operated with non-union men."

In the building industry opposition to the introduction of machinery, with few exceptions, did not result in a definite policy. The carpenters' local unions in several cities have restrictive regulations, but the manufacture of building parts and materials in factories under union control has not necessitated an antimachine policy.

The cigar-makers do not permit the use of the union label on machine-made cigars, although the union does not prohibit members from working on machines. But even this restriction had nearly a disastrous effect on the union. Mr. G. W. Perkins, president of the cigar-makers' international union, in his report to the 1923 convention, declared:

'J. S. Robinson, American Association of Iron and Steel Workers, “Johns Hopkins University Studies," XXXVIII, 120.