The Triangle Fire, Protocols Of Peace: And Industrial Democracy In Progressive

2. The Making of Industrial Democracy in the Ladies' Garment Industry: The Creation of the Protocols of Peace

2 The Making of Industrial Democracy in the Ladies' Garment Industry The Creation ofthe Protocols ofPeace INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRATS AND THE 1910 GREAT REVOLT Reformers, such as those involved with the Protocol, saw industrial democracy as the answer to industrial anarchy. "A radical transformation of society might take place," write historians Nelson Lichtenstein and Howell John Harris in Industrial Democracy in America, [Blut it would be achieved in gradual, peaceful fashion, by piecemeal activities of men or women of good will, of all social classes, sharing common concerns about injustice and wastefulness ofthe social order ... it was a vision, a goal, an implicit ideal for focusing criticism of the existing order.1 Industrial democracy held out a promise to workers as well. There was, however, a built-in contradiction. The democracy reformers envisioned was not easily contained. The more self-involved workers became , the more democracy they demanded, and the more unruly the system became. Thus, the driving force behind the Protocol-industrial democracy-would also be a principal source of its demise. Indeed, many of the designers of the Protocol feared this problem from the start and sought to create institutional safeguards against it that were profoundly antidemocratic. The "peacemakers," as the creators of the Protocol were called, established rigid top-down systems of bureaucracy in industrial relations (IR).2 To fully appreciate the problematic nature of these transformations, we must first understand how the Protocol came about and how widespread it became. On July 7, 1910, the cloakmakers' "Great Revolt" began. As work ground to a halt throughout the city, diverse actors moved to reshape the future of industrial relations. Involvement came from many fronts. As soon as the strike started, Michael Reagan, industrial mediator of the New York State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, entered the fray. 57 Copyrighted Material 58 CHAPTER2 Reagan, in a July 8 letter sent to both sides, offered his services and that of the Board to establish "a conference committee" to mediate the strike. While the union quickly jumped at the offer, management remained aloof. After a week of frantic efforts, Reagan's plan remained insufficient to convince the owners to come to the table. Finally, at the suggestion of John Lundrigan, chair of the State Board, Reagan scheduled a July 19 meeting in the hopes that management would reconsider. The most important issue, however-union recognition-continued to divide the two sides. The association refused to give in on recognition.3 Meyer Bloomfield, a prominent Boston social worker and industrial reformer, began another effort to end the strike on behalf of industrial democrat A. Lincoln Filene, owner of the Boston department store Filene's. Filene sent Bloomfield and J. R. Simpson, his merchandise manager , to New York for the talks. Bloomfield and Simpson were in immediate contact with both sides. In fact, Bloomfield's presence may have caused the state-sponsored talks to falter. Simpson wrote to Filene early on that the union had honest grievances. But, he worried whether the union had demonstrated its ability for self-government. Without it, he argued, collective bargaining would be useless. Simpson suggested that the union be pressured to give up recognition and instead focus on the most glaring bread-and-butter grievances; once the union had properly matured, recognition would come. If the manufacturers proved obstinate , as Simpson assumed they would, Filene should, according to Simpson, "bring together twenty-five or so of the leading merchants [retailers] of the country to get the manufacturers to do what is right."4 Industrial democrats like Filene believed mature, responsible unions were important to stabilize the industry. In addition, as a large retailer, Filene could exert enormous economic pressure on garment manufacturers , forcing them to the bargaining table. According to historian Kim McQuaid, Filene understood something few others did at the time: America was fast becoming a consumers' republic. As such, providing goods and services to consumers was a form of public service. To deny the public access to consumer goods, as was happening under the strike, was against the public interest.s Bloomfield, Filene, and others had been involved with "the labor question" for some time by 1910. Both had been active in the national and regional National Civic Federation. Both had experience with the ladies' garment industry and Jewish labor. Moreover, both were keenly Copyrighted Material The Making of Industrial Democracy in the Ladies' Garment Industry 59 interested in forging a new IR...