-
Introduction
- The University of Tennessee Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Introduction Cannon Mills Company exemplified the southern textile firm. From its creation in the late 1880s until the mid-1980s, Cannon Mills operated as a paternalistic company controlled by a small group of insiders. James W. Cannon and his associates on the board of directors ran the firm from its creation until 1921, when Cannon’s son, Charles, took over. Charles Cannon led the firm until his death in 1971. While other companies in the textile industry were divesting themselves of mill villages and the vestiges of paternalism, Charles Cannon was running the firm in the fashion established by his father. Indeed, Kannapolis, the firm’s mill village, was the largest unincorporated town in the United States. Outwardly, Cannon Mills resembled a modern corporation, but Charles Cannon and his associates dominated the company with little influence from stockholders. “Uncle Charlie,” as Cannon workers called him, maintained control of the firm through his force of personality, through control of the voting shares of stock, and by making sure that like-minded men served on the board of directors. His degree of control in Kannapolis can be characterized as cultural hegemony, defined by historian T. J. Jackson Lears as the spontaneous consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is “historically” caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production.1 The cultural hegemony established by the Cannons in Kannapolis, based on the prestige of the Cannon family and having a Cannon as the firm’s leader, was pervasive and persistent. With the death of Charles Cannon, however, the firm entered a pseudo-paternalistic stage with the quick succession of three chairmen. The accelerated decline of paternalism began with the intrusion of federal government policies regarding discrimination in employment and housing. Executive orders, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, xii @ Introduction and the 1968 Open Housing Act brought pressure on the paternalistic structure of the firm and mill village. Cannon Mills’ entrance into the modern bureaucratic stage of management came with the purchase of Cannon Mills by California financier David Murdock in 1982. In the four short years that Murdock was CEO, the passing of paternalism hastened as he oversaw the sale of mill houses and part of the company town. By the time Fieldcrest purchased the firm in 1986, Murdock had jerked the company and its community into the modern corporate world. The quick and traumatic demise of paternalism and Murdock’s restructuring of the pension fund destroyed workers’ loyalty and established bad industrial relations at Fieldcrest Cannon. Increasing numbers of workers turned to the union for protection, resulting in a series of union elections. Pillowtex purchased Fieldcrest Cannon in 1997, and the union finally won an election in 1999, declaring it the greatest labor victory in southern textile history. But the long union struggle against Cannon Mills proved futile as Pillowtex declared bankruptcy in 2003 and was liquidated. Paternalism emerged in the textile mills in the New South as mill villages sprang forth in the southern Piedmont. Mill owners provided services for mill workers in exchange for hard work, loyalty, and deference to the mill owners. The mill village was self-contained to a degree, as southern industrialists “protected” their workers from the outside world and served as a conduit between the village and the world beyond. This geographic isolation , similar to parents protecting their children from the dangers outside the home, was part of the mills’ paternalism. Life in a mill village was much different from life on a farm. Farmers did their planting and cultivating however they saw fit with little or no supervision . In contrast, mill workers were supervised, had rigid work regulations, and possessed little work autonomy. Farmers controlled their own time and pace of work, while textile workers did not. Mill workers were told when to appear for work, when to have meals, when to take breaks, and when to go home. In addition, workers did not control the speed of their work or how tasks were preformed. For economic reasons, mill owners often constructed their mills away from town limits, enabling mill owner to avoid paying municipal taxes.2 In addition, mill owners took advantage of cheap farmland on which to build their mills. Because that farmland lacked housing, stores, churches, and essential public services, the mill owners had to provide these for their...