PART I
Nation
Chapter 1
Fighting “Union Dictation”: Birth of the Open-Shop Movement
In no case with which I am familiar has the demand for a union shop been accompanied by a proposition for benefit to the employer, except perhaps that he may, by conceding to the demand, hope to avoid the persecution of the local union to which his men belong.
—William H. Pfahler, “Free Shops for Free Men,” 1903
To properly understand the open-shop movement’s birth, one must explore the lives of the colorful individuals who built the organizations that drove it, shaped labor-management relations, and impacted community and national affairs. These employer-activists presented themselves publicly as concerned not only with their own economic challenges, but also with the interests of the country, their communities, and their workers. They organized open-shop groups because they believed that unionists were selfish, often lawless figures responsible for creating a host of problems for independent workers, business owners, and the economy generally. In the public sphere, practically all open-shop proponents claimed they wanted to establish and oversee profitable workplaces built around principles of fairness and meritocracy. One can generalize further: they tended to be ambitious, community-oriented, socially conscious, and uncompromising in their belief that, as employers, they must have final say over matters of management. Yet they seldom presented themselves as, say, purely self-interested figures disconnected from the masses of wage earners or from the public generally. Overall, they believed that confronting labor union excesses, lawlessness, and monopolies was a community rather than an individual undertaking. Some held the opinion that their collective efforts represented the very best traditions of American patriotism. As proud defenders of open shops, they saw themselves as fair-minded Americans determined to find solutions to community, national, and industry problems.
This chapter explores the contexts in which these forward-thinking individuals emerged. It examines the local, national, and trade-based origins of the open-shop movement, noting its multiple roots, which can be traced to the ideas and actions of employers from numerous regions. It also illustrates the widespread popularity and effectiveness of the movement across industries. The movement grew relatively quickly, and most employers across a range of industries agreed with its central message. The clearest sociological pattern that emerges from an examination of turn-of-thecentury organized employers is that they tended to share a belief in the importance of defending private property and management rights while insisting that workers must enjoy the freedom to refuse membership in labor unions. They believed that, by working together, they could achieve these goals and help reform American society generally.
“A force for good”: Employers in the Foundry and Metal-Working Industries
The final years of the nineteenth century are an appropriate starting point to understand both employers’ collective frustration with, and nationwide attempts to solve, labor unrest. Historians have written extensively about the massive, often destructive, and frequently violent strikes that unsettled the nation in the decades after the Civil War. There is no reason to revisit the causes, characteristics, and results of these titanic battles, but it is worth pointing out that, taken together, these protests forced observers to confront what many Gilded Agers called “the labor question.”1 For mostly self-interested reasons, employers often took the lead in addressing what was undoubtedly one of the central concerns of the period.
Consider first the case of the American Foundrymen’s Association (AFA), a trade organization comprising foundry owners and managers principally concerned with matters related to research, innovation, production, and profits. Formed in 1896, the AFA was not chiefly interested in labor-management matters, but much of its membership, in the face of an emboldened labor movement, was forced to come to terms with, in the words of a Foundry magazine writer in 1897, “the inconveniences inseparable from labor troubles.”2 As union protests spread, foundry owners discovered that there was a genuine need for the establishment of a professional, rigorous, and well-focused organization because the AFA had, according to an Iron Trade Review article in 1898, “limited itself to the discussion of technical questions and the betterment of practice in the shop.”3 In practice, labor troubles meant serious production-and distribution-related difficulties, which in turn harmfully impacted customers and reduced earnings. Solution-minded AFA members responded to such troubles by beginning the process of building what they called a “defense association” in 1896.4 They had models to emulate. Stove builders, for instance, had previously illustrated how to establish labor peace with iron molders as a result of creating the Stove Founders National Defense Association (SFNDA), which emerged in 1886 in the face of a nationwide strike wave. That organization, the first national employers’ association, enjoyed years of give-and-take negotiations with leaders from the Iron Molders Union (IMU), which resulted in long-lasting peace and stability.5
In late 1896, three AFA members, Pittsburgh’s William Yagle, E. H. Putnam of Chattanooga, and Philadelphia’s William H. Pfahler, began the formal process of building a new, more inclusive organization, one that promised to effectively respond to the nagging labor problem. All three came from highly industrialized communities that experienced periodic outbursts of labor troubles, which in practice generally meant momentary periods of social unrest, loss of income, and a breakdown of goodwill between workers and their bosses. Each of the men saw themselves as capable and resilient leaders, determined to find solutions to these managerial and financial challenges, set an example through their leadership, and ultimately inspire others to follow their examples. They met privately, discussed labor-management matters at length, prepared a report, and submitted it to the AFA’s general delegation. According to an 1897 article in Railway Age and Northwestern Railroader, AFA delegates responded favorably to the organizers’ efforts, unanimously holding the view that the creation of an effective defense association “would be of greater importance to the foundry business and possess greater possibilities for good than anything else that could be suggested at this time.”6
As the three conducted their tasks, AFA affiliates, including the Philadelphia Foundrymen’s Association, continued to discuss labor matters. One member spelled out the problem explicitly in early 1898: “When we realize that 90 per cent of all that enters into the cost of our products is labor, we must take it seriously into consideration. If we can convince labor that lower prices must prevail, then we are all right for the future.”7 From their collective viewpoint, the central problem was that labor unions naturally functioned, in part, to raise wages for their members, which, very simply, tied the employer’s hand and ultimately hurt his bottom line. Simply put, they felt a sense of urgency to do something meaningful to reduce labor costs and increase profits.
Their conclusions, detailed in trade publications, suggest their preparedness to approach the labor question diplomatically in ways that mirrored the SFNDA’s strategy.8 They believed there was little reason to antagonize their employees because many, though hardly all, held membership in the IMU, a politically moderate union with a long history of representing craftsmen. Labor-management relations were hardly perfect, but foundry operators and union leaders tended to believe in compromise, recognizing the benefits, fairness, and long-term stability of cooperation. The three men wanted, at first, to perfect a system of negotiations in order to ensure mutual rewards and thus reduce workplace strife. At the AFA annual meeting in May 1897 in Detroit, they spoke boldly about “the necessity of meeting organization with organization” and “adding strength and dignity to any arrangements that might be amicably concluded between all parties.” Above all, the