Article Review: The Pullman Strike by Richard Hofstadter and Michael Wallace
Summary
The Pullman Strike was a landmark event in the labor history of the United States. Happened in 1894, the strike has involved large numbers of workers who fought against agents of the federal government. The workers, who worked under the Pullman Palace Car Company, underwent a series of labor relations changes that led them to organize the strike. Company owner George Pullman gathered all of his workers under a town that asks for higher rental fees but serves as an advantage for gaining employment at Pullman. The 1893 depression led the company to lay off some of its workers. Those who remained employed had their wages reduced by twenty percent, yet rental costs in the company-provided town did not decrease. The workers sought to negotiate with the company management, but a breakdown in talks led them to declare a strike with the help of the American Railway Union (ARU). Agents of the ARU, led by Eugene Debs, declared that their members would not operate any railway service that utilizes Pullman cars unless the company settles their managerial disputes (Hofstadter & Wallace 24).
The ARU’s decision, coming alongside Pullman’s strong presence in US railway lines at the time, caused a major standstill in transport operations, which grew to national proportions. Debs led striking workers to engage in violent altercations with the police, which led to a series of deaths and injuries. The US government, through the office of US President Grover Cleveland, eventually proceeded to send federal troops to quash the demonstrations, despite the refusal of Illinois governor John Peter Altgeld. The entry of federal troops in the scene originated from the court injunction obtained by Attorney-General Richard Olney, which maintains that the Pullman workers’ strike has affected the transportation of mails. The federal troops – with their sophisticated arsenal, met success in overthrowing the strike by breaking through mobs, leaving several people dead or injured (Hofstadter & Wallace 24-28).
Analysis and Commentary
The dissolution of the Pullman strike featured the power of the US government to end a strike forcefully. At the same time, it saw the importance of consulting with federal courts on such disputes. Thus, it has become imperative for companies such as Pullman to seek the help of the courts and the federal government, as a matter of protecting their interests amidst angry workers. Such has become a loophole for companies to restrain cases of labor disputes – a feature that does not contribute to leveling the employment playing field. The increasing violence in dealing with strikes has given greater weight towards the welfare of the workers, whose main concerns include reasonable compensation and fair treatment, among others.
While the greater concern of delivering mail across different places in the US has motivated the government to act on the Pullman strike, it nevertheless emerges that both the government and the company worked together as they share the same goal of ending the strikes. It is baffling to think that in terms of that aspect, the government has seemingly chosen to neglect their responsibility to protect the labor rights of the workers. The government could have resolved the problem through other means that would not compromise the safety and security of any person in the process, yet the urgency of the matter rattled it to the point that officials therein saw the involvement of federal troops as necessary. The consequent violence may have stopped the strike of Pullman workers, but it did not end the real problem inherent in the strike, which is the lack of proper regard for labor rights. In fact, the outcome of the Pullman strike has set a dangerous precedent for companies that might resort to violent measures in the event of any labor uprising. That, perhaps, could give companies a greater excuse for disregarding labor-related calls. Looking at the Pullman strike as a case justifying labor as an excusable concern could provide detrimental effects to upholding an essential democratic factor.
Indeed, it is important for the US government to protect the labor rights of its citizens. The democratic system of the nation establishes the rationale for better labor conditions and opportunities, hence voicing out labor-related concerns is important as both a sign of activism and a sign of awareness. The Pullman strike does not constitute the ideal response to labor activism, as it ended on a bloody note without the firm resolution of the problem at hand, which is abuse of labor. The US government should prioritize better measures for labor away from what has happened to the Pullman employees during the last decade of the 19th century. Officials therein should not just seek to get away from any problem concerning labor, regardless of any reasonable loophole as exhibited by Olney and his court injunction. Protecting labor rights should always find sanctification through constructive measures that aim for long-term developments. In that case, commerce could become more viable and helpful for the resolve of the US to grow further as a nation.
Works Cited
American Perspectives: Readings in American History Volume 1. 2nd ed. Ed. History Department Faculty at Houston Community College. London: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2003. Print.
