Prof. 2/17/08 Cowie LABOR HISTORY (INTRO.) 55th Hour The ensuing reforms of the Triangle incidentally stabilized New York business, but they undoubtedly created new attitudes about the labor problem. Unparalleled social change took place immediately following the notorious inferno. Given the reactionary Tammany Hall government before March 25, 1911 the social progress made by Frances Perkins, Bob Wagner and Al Smith following the fire yielded a labor framework thats overall structure is still in tact today. This progress, though, did not come from the interest of Tammany Hall in improving working conditions for the betterment of the people of New York, but rather for Tammanys unquenchable desire for political power. In New York, since the 1860s Tweed reign, Tammany Hall had been the corrupt, political democrats that held power in the city by catering to the needs of the common person. If one had a problem ranging from a job search to a personal dispute, one could go to Tammany Hall and seek help. These petty issues, though, were not in the name of social progress, but rather in obtaining votes to bolster the strength of this prospering local government. Tammanys little kindness solved no social problems, but they help people through difficult times. (Vohn Drehle, 23). These complaints from the common people, though, were inspired by the living conditions of the lower east side tenements and the horrible working environments in what could be considered sweatshops. The living conditions involved numerous people sleeping in closet sized rooms and one toilet for twenty people. Working hazards meant
hundreds of people working in extremely close quarters with potentially only one exit. What was Tammanys interest in these issues? Solving the citys problems on a micro level, rather than on a macro one. Unfortunately, Tammany could not see, or did not care, that these small issues dealt with the lack of labor regulations. The fire at the Asch building, though, put Tammany in the necessary scenario of shifting its way of conducting politics to deal with the lack of labor reform, or the votes would disappear. Essentially Tammany stood for the continuation of New Yorks grimy, competitive, unchanging labor and social system in which unquestioned ambition was rampant and bargaining power essential. On the other hand, with the plethora of immigrants, mostly ones from Eastern Europe, the government structure became less appealing, and the socialist idea of unionization and wage support became vogue. The general strike called by the WTUL (Womens Trade Union League), while seemingly fruitless, actually became the first small brick laid in the building of social progress. Like any failed mission, it give the strikers foresight on how to build a coalition for social change for after the fire, learning that wealth is not as important in seeking reform as is a genuine interest and skill. But as the general strike and the union exponentially almost grew, this meant an increase in socialist supporters. The socialist ideal became the progressive ideal, and this meant fewer votes for the reactionary Tammany Democratic party. After the Triangle fire, the Committee on Safety tried to congregate people of great wealth similar to that of the WTUL during the general strike. The commission was interested in implementing regulations, or laws, for progress in the name of labor. Unfortunately, It was a very impressive group. But one of the great failings of many
progressives was that they disdained practical politics. (Von Drehle, 208). What the commission actually needed were people who were not fulfilling a philanthropic interest, but rather people who had the bargaining power and political interest to actually make laws. Seizing the opportunity to grab back the voters, Charles Murphy, the precise, calculating and thoughtful king of Tammany Hall, surprisingly defied tradition and chose two astute fledglings, Bob Wagner and Al Smith, as the men who would represent Tammany in the senate. These mens interests were in serving the poor and helping to pass bills in support of their desires. Fortunately, they also had a congenial relationship with Frances Perkins, an educated lobbyist who specialized in social progress. With Perkins influence and desire for the implementation of the fifty-five hour workweek, the Tammany Twins created enough reform to transform the values of the Democratic Party and more importantly create the change in the Labor issue. These two men produced a series of new laws in the 1913 legislature that was unmatched to that time in American history. The Tammany Twins pushed through twentyfive bills, entirely recasting the labor law of the nations largest state. (Von Drehle, 215). This significant change became the definition of new Tammany politics, which became to signify progress in the labor movement. The labor regulations that ensued are part of the labor patchwork of today. These laws include the fifty-five hour workweek, minimum wage and fire and safety laws. But what truly sparked this framework? Charles Murphy never wanted to approve the fiftyfive hour workweek, after all how did this bill benefit him directly? Fortunately for the labor class of the early 1900s, Charlie Murphys competitive and thoughtful nature
coincided with their interests. Tammany proved to be a dynamic institution, a necessary trait for success. This need for success meant a change in political strategy, which happened to result in the labor class receiving its demands. To say there was no social progress, or that social progress was only there to stabilize business is a fallacy. Business stabilized because the progress of the labor movement reached a necessary equilibrium. This equilibrium was achieved through the natural ebb and flow of politics. These reforms, though, were not a product of luck, rather a product of political nature.