What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
What stood out to me most this week was the growth of the city, as well as the development of unions.
The city grew physically larger through technology like enhanced steel and skyscraper construction. The city adapted sociologically and this era was characterized by the growth in slums, ethnic enclaves and wealthy neighborhoods.
The formation and development of unions stood out to me as a response to the harshness of labor discussed in previous chapters. Although the government was still largely on the side of business owners, the development on unions seems to mark a shift towards enhanced labor power.
The lectures and readings raised the question of how America would begin solving the problem of slums, and who would spark concern for solving social issues like slums and child labor? While we have discussed the impact of women on reforming social issues, but I have questions about the broader social response that occurred.
One theme that I found particularly interesting this week was trade unionism and the idea of a closed shop union. I thought this particularly demonstrated progress in labourers’ previous campaigning for rights and better working conditions. The idea of a closed shop business union demonstrated the increased leverage and power of the workforce versus the corporation, with all employees being members and contributing to strike funds, sick benefit and the prevention of strikebreaking by large corporations. All these factors empowered workers and allowed for more effective and practical demonstration and campaigning.
What exactly were the methods used to encourage large corporations to agree to closed shop policy, what were the main reasons for agreeing and how were they held accountable to this?
The theme that stood out to me most this week was the influence of corporations on politics during this time period. Corporations had a hand in politics on the Federal, State, and Municipal levels. For example, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Pullman Strike of 1894 were both broken by the dispatch of Federal troops. Because politicians were under the influence of rich businessmen the government during this time was corrupt and favored the rich over the labor class. This raises the question of whether unions at this time could be successful in achieving fair working conditions with a corrupt government against them. How did large labor unions develop and have influence in politics?
The theme that stood out to me was the rampant corruption in politics in the late nineteenth century. The need for civil service reform and the nefarious politics f political machines, opened the door for the progressive movement. In the readings I also saw how the development of a managerial bureaucratic class set up the new market for recreational activities like baseball and theme parks. I was left wondering how the split Republican Party would play into the future of American politics, especially how the Mugwumps would maintain a relationship with the business interests that were key to the Republican base.
The theme that stood out to me the most this week was the idea of trade unionism versus reform unionism. It reminded me a lot of the argument between W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington. Reform unionists, like DuBois, wanted to influence a much higher level and had much less realistic goals. Washington and trade unionism have similarities in that they were able to make a smaller influence that had a more direct impact of the lives of those involved, rather than society itself. I thought their ideas were much more realistic than reform unionism and DuBois. I thought the correlation between these two was very ironic. This raises the question: how involved were black people in the labor unions at this time?
What stood out to me this week was the amount of power the rich had over the poor. Whether it was the political machines or the resistance to labor unions, the rich practically controlled society. Although government tried to curb the power of the wealthy, they had little effect. Additionally, the economic disparity, which ranged from Vanderbilt's $100 million to the average city worker's $700, factored into the lopsided scale of societal power. My biggest question is if there is any difference in the balance of power today compared to then?
The focus of class this week seemed to be on the organization of workers. More specifically, the formation of unions like the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor. These unions were closely related to and involved with other key events like the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Haymarket bombing. All of these developments were very important, but during the readings I was equally as interested in the idea of a family economy and child labor. The rising popularity of women working as typewriters also caught my attention. I guess my question is why/how did some groups receive so much attention and put so much effort into achieving change, while others didn't seem to have made the same kind of progress or efforts?
Something that struck me this week was the difference between the methods laborers went about winning their rights. On one hand you had the reform unionists who believed that the only way to effect change in their working environment was to be politically active and help get people in to office that would pass legislative reforms. This idea was represented in the National Labor Union. On the other hand you had the trade unionists who wanted immediate change and resorted to negotiations and strikes. This type of unionism was particularly successful at the end of the 19th century under Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor. My question is how did the combination of the two types of unionism lead to change in labor policy in the late 1800's and can one be more credited with the success as opposed to the other? Also would it have been better for everyone if the two types had worked together?
I think an interesting development with race is that with the disappearance of slavery came the disappearance of cheap labor for alarm land owners. It is no wonder that they industrialized and moved more towards factories because they weren't going to compete with the Norths economy only relying on agriculture. With slave labor illegal and an increasing number of people becoming factory workers a call for improved labor relations was inevitable. The economy of the south was better off, but it was at the expense of many children workers, which also started movements towards unionism.
Something that stood it to me this week was the difference between the reform unionism and trade unionism. The reform unionists believed that the only way to effect change was to be politically active and try to elect people into legislation that would pass things beneficial to them. On the other side were the trade unionists who desired immediate change which resulted in negotiations and strikes. My question is why didn't they try to combine and work together?
Something that stood out to me this week was how greatly money influenced how every little thing was done. From politics to every day life, the owner of a corporation or anyone with significant wealth could do whatever/get whatever they wanted out of society. Class separation and the wage gap were only furthered by this. I found it interesting how the discovery of wealth and poverty changed the landscape of politics so quickly. The rise of unionism, to me, sort of represents the two perspectives clashing. My question is: if wealth would have been distributed more evenly back then, how would the economic landscape of today look?
The theme that stood out the most to me in this week's readings and lectures was the growth of the new south. The old south, specifically characterized by agriculture, transitioned into the new south. The new south transitioned into a much more urban and industrial area. Workers were now caught in a crossfire, and child labor rose to extremely high levels. My question is how did the south become a balance of urban and agriculture as it is now? Which time period did this occur? I think the specific transition into this balance would be extremely interesting to study.
What stood out to me most this week was the growth of the city, as well as the development of unions.
ReplyDeleteThe city grew physically larger through technology like enhanced steel and skyscraper construction. The city adapted sociologically and this era was characterized by the growth in slums, ethnic enclaves and wealthy neighborhoods.
The formation and development of unions stood out to me as a response to the harshness of labor discussed in previous chapters. Although the government was still largely on the side of business owners, the development on unions seems to mark a shift towards enhanced labor power.
The lectures and readings raised the question of how America would begin solving the problem of slums, and who would spark concern for solving social issues like slums and child labor? While we have discussed the impact of women on reforming social issues, but I have questions about the broader social response that occurred.
One theme that I found particularly interesting this week was trade unionism and the idea of a closed shop union. I thought this particularly demonstrated progress in labourers’ previous campaigning for rights and better working conditions. The idea of a closed shop business union demonstrated the increased leverage and power of the workforce versus the corporation, with all employees being members and contributing to strike funds, sick benefit and the prevention of strikebreaking by large corporations. All these factors empowered workers and allowed for more effective and practical demonstration and campaigning.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly were the methods used to encourage large corporations to agree to closed shop policy, what were the main reasons for agreeing and how were they held accountable to this?
The theme that stood out to me most this week was the influence of corporations on politics during this time period. Corporations had a hand in politics on the Federal, State, and Municipal levels. For example, the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Pullman Strike of 1894 were both broken by the dispatch of Federal troops. Because politicians were under the influence of rich businessmen the government during this time was corrupt and favored the rich over the labor class. This raises the question of whether unions at this time could be successful in achieving fair working conditions with a corrupt government against them. How did large labor unions develop and have influence in politics?
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me was the rampant corruption in politics in the late nineteenth century. The need for civil service reform and the nefarious politics f political machines, opened the door for the progressive movement. In the readings I also saw how the development of a managerial bureaucratic class set up the new market for recreational activities like baseball and theme parks. I was left wondering how the split Republican Party would play into the future of American politics, especially how the Mugwumps would maintain a relationship with the business interests that were key to the Republican base.
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me the most this week was the idea of trade unionism versus reform unionism. It reminded me a lot of the argument between W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington. Reform unionists, like DuBois, wanted to influence a much higher level and had much less realistic goals. Washington and trade unionism have similarities in that they were able to make a smaller influence that had a more direct impact of the lives of those involved, rather than society itself. I thought their ideas were much more realistic than reform unionism and DuBois. I thought the correlation between these two was very ironic. This raises the question: how involved were black people in the labor unions at this time?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me this week was the amount of power the rich had over the poor. Whether it was the political machines or the resistance to labor unions, the rich practically controlled society. Although government tried to curb the power of the wealthy, they had little effect. Additionally, the economic disparity, which ranged from Vanderbilt's $100 million to the average city worker's $700, factored into the lopsided scale of societal power. My biggest question is if there is any difference in the balance of power today compared to then?
ReplyDeleteThe focus of class this week seemed to be on the organization of workers. More specifically, the formation of unions like the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor. These unions were closely related to and involved with other key events like the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Haymarket bombing. All of these developments were very important, but during the readings I was equally as interested in the idea of a family economy and child labor. The rising popularity of women working as typewriters also caught my attention. I guess my question is why/how did some groups receive so much attention and put so much effort into achieving change, while others didn't seem to have made the same kind of progress or efforts?
ReplyDeleteSomething that struck me this week was the difference between the methods laborers went about winning their rights. On one hand you had the reform unionists who believed that the only way to effect change in their working environment was to be politically active and help get people in to office that would pass legislative reforms. This idea was represented in the National Labor Union. On the other hand you had the trade unionists who wanted immediate change and resorted to negotiations and strikes. This type of unionism was particularly successful at the end of the 19th century under Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor. My question is how did the combination of the two types of unionism lead to change in labor policy in the late 1800's and can one be more credited with the success as opposed to the other? Also would it have been better for everyone if the two types had worked together?
ReplyDeleteI think an interesting development with race is that with the disappearance of slavery came the disappearance of cheap labor for alarm land owners. It is no wonder that they industrialized and moved more towards factories because they weren't going to compete with the Norths economy only relying on agriculture. With slave labor illegal and an increasing number of people becoming factory workers a call for improved labor relations was inevitable. The economy of the south was better off, but it was at the expense of many children workers, which also started movements towards unionism.
ReplyDeleteSomething that stood it to me this week was the difference between the reform unionism and trade unionism. The reform unionists believed that the only way to effect change was to be politically active and try to elect people into legislation that would pass things beneficial to them. On the other side were the trade unionists who desired immediate change which resulted in negotiations and strikes. My question is why didn't they try to combine and work together?
ReplyDeleteSomething that stood out to me this week was how greatly money influenced how every little thing was done. From politics to every day life, the owner of a corporation or anyone with significant wealth could do whatever/get whatever they wanted out of society. Class separation and the wage gap were only furthered by this. I found it interesting how the discovery of wealth and poverty changed the landscape of politics so quickly. The rise of unionism, to me, sort of represents the two perspectives clashing. My question is: if wealth would have been distributed more evenly back then, how would the economic landscape of today look?
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out the most to me in this week's readings and lectures was the growth of the new south. The old south, specifically characterized by agriculture, transitioned into the new south. The new south transitioned into a much more urban and industrial area. Workers were now caught in a crossfire, and child labor rose to extremely high levels. My question is how did the south become a balance of urban and agriculture as it is now? Which time period did this occur? I think the specific transition into this balance would be extremely interesting to study.
ReplyDelete