*Bread and Roses by Judy Collins*

P​art One: …Shall Not Be Sweetened

T​he Industrial Revolution; what can be described as the explosive advancement of technologies which brought about a tidal wave of opportunity for wealth through exploitation. Skilled workers crafting unique fabrics with a specific set of tools can now be replaced with a mechanical loom, which requires more bravery than skill to use.

1. American Federation of Labor (A.F. of L.)
2. Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)
3. Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and many others.

T​he IWW members were called “Wobblies”, by the way. What a wonderful name. They formally acknowledged the name in a 1912 publication, but it’s been around longer than that.

E​ach of these major unions approach the labor movement differently, and to understand their conflicts, it’s important to understand their ideologies.

While the A.F. of L. wanted to create separate unions for workers of different crafts, the IWW wants is to form one big, happy union that all workers subscribed to. In 1917, at their peak, their numbers estimated to over 150,000 — still smaller than the A.F. of L. but that is still massive.

Meanwhile, the CIO was picking fights with the A.F. of L., wanting to absorb it. T​he two did merge in the end, creating the AFL-CIO, which still exists today. The IWW is still doing its own thing too, though it’s down to just over 12,000 members worldwide.

Graph made by economists in 1912

Moving back to my main topic, t​here were a lot of goods produced during the industrial revolution. This helped set up the foundations of an ever-advancing society, infrastructure, etc.

Necessities such as clothing, housing, jobs and food became more abundant, creating a labor vacuum that drew in immigrants, promising the freedom to do whatever they choose with their lives.

As a result, there was more of almost everything. In the 19th century, economists essentially believed more is better. Naturally, when they saw an increase in coal, freight and bank clearings, they thought it signified a healthy economy, hence the graph. Economies are, as we now know, far more complex than this implies, but it’s a great way to show the effects of immigration on production in the US at the time.

N​eedless to say, there was a lot to be gained from working in affected markets. Just not for the workers.

One of numerous downsides to these developments was how it rapidly reshaped the relationship between employer and employee. Now, this “relationship” has always been somewhat strained. Employees want more money for less work while employers want more of your labor for a lower cost. This can, in some settings, create a sort of balance.

More realistically, however, employers tend to gradually shift the power dynamic in their favor, until the employees have no option but to work long hours for starvation wages.

Textile mills in particular would target women or younger workers (even falsifying documents to get underage employees) who had immigrated and were in desperate need of an income. Without the time or resources required to find anything better, many of them were forced to accept this as their fate. Enslavement to low wages and a lack of options.

To fight this, Unions formed, as I mentioned before, and the quality of life for employees within unionized trades rose as a result.

Companies would overstep or deny employee demands for humane work environments or wages, then the employees would go on strike. It was not uncommon for these strikes to become violent, either, especially the larger ones. The media loved this, of course, because violent outbreaks over divisive labor politics made headlines that would sell really well. Unfortunately, these headlines, articles and cartoons were rarely in favor of the unions.

Harper’s Weekly cartoon depicting Eugene V. Debs, a union leader during the Pullman Strike; another fascinating story for some other time.

S​till, the major labor unions brought about real change. This was typically focused on more specific trades, but one union in particular pushed for political action that would impact the entire working class rather than just a few at a time. This was, of course, the Wobblies over at the IWW, who believed in unifying all workers beneath one union rather than having separate unions for each trade.

T​he fruits of their labor?

A series of small steps in a better direction, one of which was reducing the work week for women from 56 hours to 54 hours.

R​educing the work week was a significant change, because workers were usually paid a set amount per one or two weeks. If you made about $10 working 56 hours this week, and next week (after the hours are reduced) you work 54 hours, you would still be paid $10. More than giving workers time, it was functionally an increase to their current hourly wage.

This wasn’t the first time hours had been reduced, either, so everyone knew how this worked. Companies lobbied heavily against it, but every small step was massively celebrated by workers and only further increased support for the unions responsible. This push was gaining momentum, despite the media’s corporate shilling, the money and those who opposed it for personal reasons.

P​art Two: …Shall Not Be Sweated

J​anuary 1st, 1912: Massachusetts began enforcing the new law that IWW had lobbied for, reducing the work week for women by two hours. Many companies weren’t effected by this change, but the textiles industry and their dominantly female employee base most certainly would be.

Union efforts had been launched in Lawrence, led by Joseph Ettor (also known as “Smiling Joe”) who represented the IWW and had been working to unionize the Lawrence textile mills for a while. However, he found it difficult to organize such a diverse group. More conservative trade unions, namely the A.F. of L., believed that these differences (as well as the fact that they were women) would make a union impossible, and offered little to no support.

The world’s largest textile mills were based in Lawrence, Massachusetts and had some of the most horrifying working conditions imaginable. Death and maiming were fairly commonplace, and the attitude of the managers is best characterized in this quote, made by a manager in the late 19th century:

“I​ regard my people as I regard my machinery. So long as they can do my work for what I choose to pay them, I keep them, getting out of them all I can. What they do or how they fare outside my walls I don’t care to know, nor do I consider my business to know. They must look out for themselves as I do myself.” — Unknown

T​hese were likely the thoughts of the managers of the Lawrence mills when they decided to reduce the pay in proportion to the reduced hours enforced by this new law. The first to notice were the workers at the Everett Mill, who found a reduction from $8.76 to $8.44 before walking out. The Washington Mill discussed the pay reduction and, since theirs came the following day, agreed to join the strike if their pay was also reduced.

On the 12th of January, 1912 (one day later), nearly the entire town of Lawrence joined the strike.

Workers picket the textile mills early in the strike

“S​hort pay, all out.” — Washington Mill workers’ chant

“​Smiling Joe” Ettor stepped in, flanked by the editor of the Italian Socialist Federation (a subgroup of the Socialist Party of America) weekly newspaper, Arturo Giovannitti. Together, they worked to turn a walkout into an organized strike.

I​n record time, they had assembled a committee of 56 representatives, four from each of the fourteen major nationalities being represented. This committee assembled meetings that were translated into 25 different languages before putting forward their demands:

1. 1​5% increase in wages for a 54-hour work week.
2. d​ouble pay for overtime work.
3. N​o discrimination against workers who went on strike.

T​hey submitted these demands to the mayor and the managers of their mills, then waited patiently for a response. If they were refused, a continued strike might cost them a home, food and what little sense of security they had. Many of these workers were the sole income for their families and had very little saved up.

It’s difficult to understate the tension surrounding their situation, which could very easily become life-or-death for many of them. This decision was not made lightly, and once that piece of paper was handed in, all they can do is wait to see what happens next…

P​art Three: Hearts Starve As Well As Bodies

O​n January 15th, the city rang its alarm bell for the first time in its history, calling out the local militia. The strike officially begins, with the mill workers taking their signs and standing in the streets just outside of the mills. Kicking ice and snow from their path and Ignoring the insults from the mill’s other employees, they picket for several hours before being interrupted by a powerful stream of water.

The watchmen at the Pacific Mill sprayed the strikers with a fire hose in the coldest months of the year, seemingly unprovoked.

Mill watchmen turning fire hoses on the strikers

T​he strikers’ responded by picking up bits of ice off the ground and throwing it at the buildings, breaking several windows in the process. This prompted the local police to arrest 24 protestors, who were then imprisoned for a full year as punishment.

“​The only way we can teach them is to deal out the severest sentences.” — Judge’s response to inquiries about the verdict

T​he A.F. of L. eventually stepped in, working with the IWW leaders in some ways while also criticizing the actions of some operatives who were sent to negotiate but instead decided to intimidate. The Wobblies, however, defend their own, even against A.F. of L. criticism, which only made them more popular among the strikers.

A​n alleged pseudo-union called the United Textile Workers of America (UTW) also stepped in, acting as though they represented the strikers by announcing the strike would end. In response, the secretary of a union affiliated with the A.F. of L. referred to the president of the UTW as a “detriment” to the labor cause.

S​eparately, it was revealed that one of the mill’s owners attempted to frame the IWW by putting explosives in his own plant. This was revealed by a contractor who claimed to have been hired for this job, though the owner was aquitted over a full year later.

T​hese two events flipped the public’s opinion of the strikers, making them see not only their cause but the labor cause as one worth fighting for.

S​till, for reasons that baffle me, the opposition continued. During one protest over two weeks into the strike (29th of January), the police fired on the protestors and killed a young woman named Anna LoPizzo.

T​his sparked what is likely the second most notable controversy of this entire strike, not only due to the casualty but also the authorities’ response to it.

T​he police arrested Ettor and Giovanitti along with one other guy named Joseph Caruso, who did not know the two leaders of the strike and was not a part of the IWW. The police put the former two in metal cages for a trial that would accuse all of them of inciting a riot that led to the death of Anna LoPizzo. However, because multiple witnesses contradicted this story and because one of the men being charged had nothing to do with the event at all, they were eventually acquitted. Not before spending the remaining duration of the strike as well as several additional months in jail, though.

“The efforts that have been made by employers and by governmental authorities to repress the movement have been worse than useless. Every move that has been made against the I. W. W. has had the effect of winning sympathy… The trial of the three agitators, Mr. Ettor, Mr. Giovannitti, and Mr. Caruso, for the murder of a woman whose death was indirectly due to the strike, was a tactical error. Mr. Ettor won the support of millions of people when he said, ‘I have been tried here not for my acts, but for my views.’” — Arno Dosch, The World’s Work

T​his action would, like many others, only garner support for those on strike. It was difficult, even for those with a deep hatred for union efforts, to twist the narrative against the strikers given how directly and obviously they had been wronged. So, instead of trying to distort what was happening, the city declared martial law, banned all public meetings and enlisted 22 more militia companies to enforce this.

T​he IWW responded by sending two more of its capable leaders to Lawrence, one of whom (Bill Haywood) got to work in a neighboring town, raising money to support the strikers. Coordinating with the other IWW leader (Elizabeth Flynn), they used whatever resources they could gather to distribute food or even set up clinics with volunteer doctors.

In an unexpected twist, this plan was successful. Neighboring towns sympathized with the strikers and were more than willing to donate time and money to anyone involved that might need it. The IWW as a whole joined in, raising funds to support the strikers and even finding suitable temporary homes for hundreds of the strikers’ children.

This was not only meant to help them, but it also made the militia and local government’s overall treatment of the strikers look much worse in the public eye. This was emblematic of the sacrifices the strikers were forced to make, and was likely done to get public figures to back down to avoid appearing sadistic.

H​owever, these are the same intellectual gymnasts who rang their city’s emergency bell for the first time in its history in response to a peaceful strike. How do you think they would respond to a public spectacle aimed at making them look bad?

A​ quick warning, their response was predictably horrifying. I recommend skipping to Part Four if you’re only looking for a light read.

Parents waiting to send their children to temporary homes in other cities.

S​everal hundred children were sent to New York, each in groups of around 80–100. They were met with cheers, and one group was even paraded through the streets of New York. This, more than anything, shows what people thought of Lawrence.

The militia and government did not attempt to stop them at first, but on February 24th, 100 children and their mothers arrived at the train station to find the police and militia waiting for them.

T​he police attempted to detain the children and arrest the parents. When met with resistance, they proceeded to club the mothers and their children before dragging them away. One pregnant woman miscarried, likely as a result of this incident. Many of the mothers, some covered in bruises and holding their infant children, refused to pay any fines and opted instead to stay in a cell.

R​eporters who had shown up to the station for pictures and a supportive (or unsupportive) sendoff thoroughly documented the event, solidifying this as a pivotal moment in the strike.

P​art Four: Bread and Roses

Using excessive force against women and children is unpopular. I don’t need to explain how it was publicly viewed, and given the amount of sympathy the movement already gained, I’m willing to bet you can figure out how people responded.

T​his event made headlines across the nation. Donations exploded, anti-union platforms imploded, but most importantly, it caught the attention of the First Lady, Helen Herron Taft

F​or those who may be unaware (like I was before doing research for this article), Helen Taft had a massive influence over her husband, President William Taft, and was herself a capable politician and leader. She is credited for many of his achievements, or at the very least, he relied heavily on her counsel.

T​he White House conducted an official investigation into the strike, and discovered that some of the children weren’t just the children of strikers, they were on strike themselves. This revelation along with the unfavorable public view of the mills and consistent support for the striking workers led to the companies agreeing to most of the demands. Some workers left, but most came back when they were unable to find another job.

A​cross the nation, other textile mills followed suit to avoid inciting a strike that might be even more demanding. There were exceptions, but with the help of the IWW, they soon capitulated.

T​he last of the mills settled their negotiations with the IWW on March 30th, 1912.

Joseph E​ttor and Arturo Giovanitti remained in prison for several months after the strike ended, but they weren’t forgotten. Joseph Caruso was remembered as well, but since he was effectively grabbed off the street and accused of being the one to fire the shot which killed Anna LoPizzo, his name didn’t make it onto many posters.

A​t this point, those doing what they can to keep Ettor and Giovannitti in prison are doing so in pursuit of revenge.

U​ltimately, they did succeed in keeping the three imprisoned from January 29th to November 10th, altering the charges part-way through to blame them for another bomb framing attempt on a different mill.

E​rnest Pitman, a contractor who had worked for the company responsible for the second bomb-framing attempt later admitted to being hired to plant it, so they could frame the IWW. He refused to testify, so they issued a subpoena… but he committed suicide before the hearing, allowing the judge to exonerate the owner of the mill in question.

“Does Mr. Ateill believe for a moment that… the cross or the gallows or the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, ever settled an idea? It never did. If an idea can live, it lives because history adjudges it right. And what has been considered an idea constituting a social crime in one age has in the next age become the religion of humanity. Whatever my social views are, they are what they are. They cannot be tried in this courtroom.” — Joseph Ettor’s Closing Statement

T​he strike was over, the workers had won and solidified their place in American history forever. It was the first of may strikes that eventually drove the textile industry out of the America and somewhat contributed to many subsequent strikes. Unfortunately, its more tangible victories were short-lived. Utilizing abusive contracts and gradually chipping away at their workers’ wages, the mills’ owners were able to circumvent or remove what they had agreed to entirely. In just a few years, the strikers were pushed back to where they had started.

T​hat’s not to say this was pointless. As I said before, it led to other strikes that eventually drove the textiles business out of the U.S. forever. I don’t have any deeper reason behind writing this. I love this story, so I wanted to share it. Hopefully this wasn’t too poorly written…

In any case, I hope you enjoyed it!