Commission that the recent immigrants are willing to work "indefinitely without protest" for low wages,' it is interesting to note the characterization of the recent immigrants by a number of superintendents and foremen of the two largest Lawrence mills. "While opinions differ somewhat, there appears to be a considerable uniformity of judgment as to their characteristics." The Italians are quick to leave their positions if they see any apparent advantage elsewhere. One mill superintendent stated that "they no sooner get a job than they want something better; they work in droves; discharge one and they all go."2

That such characteristics are favorable to concerted action for economic improvement, has been demonstrated by the recent strike of the polyglot working force at the Lawrence mills. An observer whose sympathies were with old-line trade-unionism, noted with surprise that "the capacity of this great host of recent immigrants, representing a number of supposedly alienated nationalities, for continuous, effective solidarity is one of the revelations of the present strike."3

The measure of success achieved by these alien strikers can be realized by comparison with the statistics of strikes for the twenty-year period 1881-1900, when the operatives in the woolen and worsted mills of Massachusetts were practically all of the English-speaking races. During that period there were in all 81 strikes, of which only 9 were declared by labor organizations, while 72 were unorganized movements, like the recent strike at Lawrence. The aggregate number of strikers in the State of Massachusetts for the twenty years was only 5618, i. e., about one third of the number engaged in the one recent strike at Lawrence. The aggregate number thrown out of employment by the strikes was 10,144 for the whole period, but 16,117 opera

Reports of the Immigration Commission, vol. 1, p. 541. 2 Ibid., vol. 10, p. 771.

3 The Survey, March 16, 1912, p. 1930: "The Clod Stirs." A. Woods, head worker of South End House of Boston.

By Robert

tives remained at work while the strikes were on. Of the 83 mills involved only 31 were forced to close while 52 were able to run with the majority that remained at work.1

Thus with all odds against them, the recent immigrants speaking in sixteen different languages, have given proof of far greater cohesion than the English-speaking operatives of former years.

1 Sixteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, Table iv., pp. 332-355.

CHAPTER XX

THE

THE IRON AND STEEL WORKERS

HE twelve-hour day, the twenty-four-hour shift, and Sunday labor, not as an emergency, but as an integral part of the system, have of late caused wide discussion of the iron and steel industry. The public conscience demanded to know who was responsible for those labor conditions. The offenders were easily discovered. Inasmuch as three fourths of the unskilled men working those long hours were found to be Southern and Eastern Europeans, it became evident that it was they who were to blame for accepting such intolerable working conditions. A representative of a labor constituency, speaking on the floor of Congress, declared that "in the steel mills of Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Milwaukee, where thirty years ago the so-called princes of labor used to get from $10 to $15 a day, the modern white coolies get $1.75 for twelve hours a day, seven days in the week," the change being due to the "Slavonians, Italians, Greeks, Russians, and Armenians," who "have been brought into this country by the million" and "simply because they have a lower stand\ard of living. . . have crowded out the Americans, Germans, Englishmen, and Irishmen," from the mills.

1

Such generalizations as these represent the popular conception of the causes of long hours and low wages in the iron and steel industry. The principal fallacy underlying

I

1 Speech of Hon. Victor L. Berger, of Wisconsin, in the House of Representatives, Wednesday, June 14, 1911. Congressional Record, pp. 2026-2030.

this interpretation has been shown in Chapter VII.: there has been no "crowding out" of American, English, Irish, or German steel workers by immigrants "brought" from Southern and Eastern Europe. The development of the iron and steel industry has been so rapid that all but a small percentage of the English-speaking workmen have been advanced to higher positions and their places have been filled with Southern and Eastern Europeans. The new immigrants do not compete with the native and older immigrant workmen, and can therefore not affect their wages.

The parallel between the "princes of labor" and the "white coolies" is equally without an historical foundation. Princes have at all times been few. "The old reputation of the steel industry as one of exceptionally high wages is false so far as the rank and file are concerned," says Mr. Fitch of the Pittsburgh Survey staff, who has made a study of the steel workers, "neither, on the other hand, should it be singled out as an unusual type, as an industry in which the majority of the men are paid at the lowest rates." The rollers, heaters, and other skilled men, whose earnings, in the early days often exceeded the salary of the superintendent, were only a small fraction of the total force.

The high earnings of the few skilled men often represented profit rather than wages. In the early '80's the contract system was the prevailing method of hiring labor in the mills:

A man would contract with the company to run a single mill, from the furnaces to the piling beds of the shears, and like any other contractor he derived his profit from the margin between what the company paid him for the tonnage turned out and what he paid the men for it. The contractor, while usually known as the roller, frequently did no work at all, having two practical rollers employed on the mill. At the same time he secured a considerable income for himself by paying the men as low wages as possible, and steel workers got a reputation for being very highly paid workmen on accouni of the large earnings of these contractors. A statement from the proprietor of one of the "largest rolling mills in

John A. Fitch, "The Steel Workers." The Pittsburgh Survey, p. 150.

1

1

the District," regarding wages paid in his mill in 1881-1882, was to the effect that under the contract system one steel worker had made $25,000 in a year. A sheet shearer made $12.00 per day and paid his helper $2.00. A hammerman in charge of both turns made $17.00 per day and paid his helper $2.50.1

The proportion of employees who were paid each rate of wages in the rolling mills of Ohio in 1884, when the number of Southern and Eastern Europeans among them was negligible, appears from Table 118. The number of

TABLE 118.

CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES IN SELECTED ROLLING MILLS OF OHIO BY RATES OF WEEKLY WAGES, 1884.1

"princes of labor" did not exceed 57 in a total force of 2134, i. e., 2.7 per cent. On the other hand, the number of "white coolies" who were paid less than $10 a week, i. e., less than $1.75 per day, was then as high as one third of the total force, and those who were paid less than $12 a week numbered nearly one half of all employees. There is no reason to assume that the wages in Ohio materially

Fitch, loc. cit., p. 99.

2 Report of the Ohio Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1885, Table 51, pp. 185-186. The statistics comprise only those mills for which complete data were available.

3 Includes: Rollers, nailers, heaters, and puddlers.