Image Source: Pullman.jpg (670×352) (bp.blogspot.com)
The Pullman Strike of 1894 stands as a vital chapter in the annals of American labor history. The event was marked by a series of extraordinary circumstances that included economic depression, labor unrest, and the involvement of influential figures like Eugene V. Debs.
More profoundly, the incident triggered a seismic shift in the relationship between labor and capital, setting a precedent that continues to reverberate to the present day.
The Origin of the Strike
The economic depression in 1893 led to a drastic reduction in wages for the Pullman Palace Car Company workers, without a corresponding decrease in living costs. The company, helmed by George Pullman, had created a company town in Illinois for its employees. As a result of the wage cuts, workers found themselves financially dependent on the company for their livelihood and residence.
Against this backdrop of economic hardship, the workers sought to negotiate fair wages and better working conditions. Their efforts were met with resistance, leading to the unannounced initiation of a strike on May 11, 1894.
The workers appealed to the American Railway Union (ARU), led by Eugene V. Debs, for support. Although the ARU was not directly involved in organizing the strike, it quickly became a central player as the situation escalated.
The Role of the American Railway Union
The ARU, founded in Chicago in June 1893, was a pioneering labor union that sought to represent all white railroad employees, irrespective of their profession. Under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs, the union had achieved notable victories, and its ranks swelled to 150,000 members by 1894. The union believed in democratic governance and the resolution of grievances through mediation, viewing strikes as destructive for both employers and employees.
However, the Pullman workers' where desperate. Their negotiations with the company had yielded no results, and their situation was becoming increasingly untenable. In this context, the ARU decided to take decisive action against the Pullman Company, a nationwide boycott of all Pullman cars.
The ARU's boycott, announced in June 1894, had a crippling effect on rail traffic across the country. The Pullman cars were widely used, and the boycott led to a nationwide disruption in rail services. The expansive reach of the ARU and the widespread wage reductions across the railroad industry further bolstered the boycott.
The General Managers' Association, an industry group representing 24 railroads with terminals in Chicago, organized countermeasures against the boycott. The association replaced striking workers with strikebreakers, and it attempted to sway public opinion against the boycott. In a strategic move, railroad managers hitched Pullman cars to mail cars to disrupt mail delivery, which would eventually provide the federal government with a justification to intervene.
Government Intervention and the Injunction
The federal government's intervention in the Pullman Strike was a notable development. The government was uncomfortable with the labor unrest, reflecting a growing apprehension about the laboring classes during a period of economic hardship. U.S. Attorney General Richard Olney, who had close ties with the railway industry, secured a federal injunction against the boycott on the grounds of the violent nature of the strike and the threat to interstate commerce, citing the Sherman Anti-Trust Law of 1890.
The injunction essentially forbade all boycott activity, marking a significant setback for unionism. This was the first instance where an injunction was used for such purposes, and the Supreme Court upheld this use in 1895. Despite the injunction and the ensuing dispatch of U.S. federal troops, the strikers mostly ignored the injunction and continued their protest.
The Pullman Strike witnessed the unprecedented involvement of police and military forces. The federal government dispatched thousands of U.S. Marshals and U.S. Army troops to quell the unrest, a response that seemed disproportionate to the disturbance. The military presence inflamed the situation, leading to increased mob activity and violent clashes between the military and workers.
In Chicago, the confrontations between the military and workers at rail yards left dozens dead and many others wounded. The jailing of key union leaders, including Debs, weakened the ARU and the strike. These events highlighted the controversial role of police funding in suppressing labor unrest, a topic that continues to be contentious in discussions about labor rights and police reform.
Aftermath of the Strike
The strike was officially declared over in early August 1894, having been broken by the combined forces of the federal injunction, the deployment of troops, and the arrest of union leaders. The ARU disbanded, but Debs emerged as the leader of the nation's burgeoning socialist movement, running for president five times on the Socialist Party ticket.
Despite the public sentiment against the boycott, George Pullman drew broad criticism for his policies and his refusal to arbitrate with his workers. The federal panel appointed to investigate the strike sharply criticized the company's paternalistic policies and refusal to arbitrate. This criticism advanced the idea of the need for unions and increased government regulation in an age of large-scale industrialization.
Share This Post On
0 comments
Leave a comment
You need to login to leave a comment. Log-in
