Issue
Homestead steel strike is one of serious labor action to have ever happened in the United States. The strike involved Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers with Carnegie Steel Company. The issue surrounding the strike was the move by Carnegie Steel Company to impose a yellow dog contract that would lead to the death of the unions which it believed were inefficient. The management thus wanted to do away with the unions and encourage its employees to be unionized. It felt by so doing it will enhance efficiency in its operations. There was pressure on the employer and union which triggered a strike (Krause 1992, 123).
Management position
The management of Carnegie Steel Company position was to impose a yellow dog contracts on all employees. The contract requires both the employer and employee to come to consensus thus the employee will never join a union. Besides, the management wanted the unions dismantled because it felt that they were inefficient and ruined the progress of the operations. The management felt that by imposing the yellow dog, contracts will assist it in killing the unions hence able to have control over its employees. As the management backed its position, the employees, and the unions went against the provision arguing that such a move was a disadvantage to the operation of the unions and also would lead to employee discrimination against their rights as per employment law provisions. Pressure mounted that lead to the outbreak of a very serious strike that saw the union and its members win the battle.
What exactly happened?
Homestead steel strike results due the difference that existed between Carnegie Steel Company and AA union. The cause of the strike came as a result of Carnegie wanting to impose a yellow dog contracts implying that the employees will remain unionized. The unions argued that the move by the employer was malicious in that it would lead to discrimination of its employees. Besides, the union had a feeling that when the employer succeeded in imposing such contracts the union loses its basis since no member would join the union. On the other hand, the management wanted to do away with the unions and keep the employees free from collective bargaining initiatives provided by the union. This is to mean that the management would enjoy the control over its employees and would anything else they wanted. The pressure that mounted between the two parties led to the rise of the strike (Wright 1893, 432).
The union was catalyzed, and so are the employees who took part in locking out the company premises. After a long period of a fight between the employer and the union, the union won the fight. The union enjoyed high gains since it received a double membership making it very strong. The management lost the fight and was unable to impose the contract. However, many companies failed to sign new contracts with AA union. Many of them joined hands to de-unionize their employees from AA Company (Oates 1892, 359).
Union’s Position
The union’s position in the strike was to prevent the management of Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers from affecting the yellow dog contracts to all its workers. The union played various roles in the protection of employees from being exploited by their employers. For instance, the union was concerned with negotiating for uniform wage rates for employees every year. Besides, it played a role in regulating the working hours, work speeds, work levels and enhanced the workplace conditions to promote satisfaction for all the employees.
The union wanted the employer not to impose such a contract since it will lead to its death. This is because members will not get into any union implying that the unions will remain with few or none members hence unable to run its activities. This further implies that the employer would take the initiative to mistreat the employees because they do not have any union to assist them in fighting for their rights. The move to impose such a contract means that the company can impose other provisions to disadvantage the employees in case unions do not exist. As a result, the unions saw that it was good not to go against the move by the company to impose the yellow dog contracts. The union was dedicated towards protecting the employees’ rights at any cost.
My Stance
In my opinion, I feel that the union was right and did the right thing in fighting for the rights of the employees. In a collective bargaining, the purpose of the union is to ensure that the employer does not take advantage of the employees. They ensure that employees receive the rights without any struggle. For instance, the unions ensure that employees work in a conducive working environment. They work hard to ensure that the employees receive the required compensation which matches with the work they perform for the company. Also, they ensure that employees have regulated workload levels and working hours (Montgomery 1987, 167).
In this case, the Union played a great role in ensuring that the employer did not impose the yellow dog contract as well fighting for its existence since the employer wanted the union dismantled. Although the employer claims that the union has no importance and disrupts the efficiency of the company operations, it is worth to note any succession to dismantle the union could have affected the satisfaction of employees negatively. The employer should have used the opportunity discriminate its employees of their rights.
If the employees are not unionized, then the employer takes the advantage of imposing anything that he or she feels like provided it is to its advantage. The fact that the company tried to impose contracts on its employees that would disadvantage their growth and development career wise is a clear indication that it would mistreat its employees in the absence of a union. The fight was good because it saw the union win the battle and so is the employees who were to suffer from the employers move to impose contract to all that would disadvantage them (Holland 2013, 243).
However, I have a feeling that such issues required the two parties to sit down and have a collective bargaining agreement that could lead to a win-win solution. In circumstances where the employer and the unions do not want to associate with each other, it becomes important for both parties to consider negotiations that will allow each side present its issues and then reason together so as to come up with concrete solutions that would foster efficiency in the business operations. Besides, it is advisable for the parties to look for an arbitrator to help them solve their issue professionally other than engaging in unhealthy fights.
Bibliography
Holland, James A., and Stuart Burnett. Employment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Krause, Paul. The Battle for Homestead, 1890-1892: Politics, Culture, and Steel. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992
Montgomery, David. The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865-1925. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Oates, William C. "The Homestead Strike. I. A Congressional View," North American Review Vol. 155 Issue 430 (September 1892) pp. 355–376
Wright, Carroll D. "The Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steelworkers," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 7 (July 1893), 400-32
