The Labor Capital Disputes of the 1920s Era

¶ … Labor-Capital Conflict of the 1920s

Labor-capital confrontations had been long brewing since the dawn of the industrial age and the start of urbanization. As the owners of the means of production amassed capital, wealth became concentrated into the hands of the few. Labor movements emerged both in Europe and in the United States, transforming the political, economic, and social landscapes of nations. The environment in which labor-capital confrontations developed must therefore be understood within a broader historical context. Market liberalization and globalization led to increased opportunities for labor exploitation, in stalwart industries such as steel and other heavy manufacturing. At the same time, exploitation of workers led to worker unrest, strikes, and protests.

As Glen Jeansonne notes, the post-World War period of the 1920s was characterized by overreach and excess: "Businessmen in the 1920s could boast of substantial accomplishments, but business grew overconfident, arrogant. In their zeal and greed the irresponsible elements in the business community claimed too much, sought too much."[footnoteRef:1] Thus, the environment in which labor-capital disputes arose was one in which Big Business was becoming too big and overassertive -- the worker was being manipulated and exploited and the push for confrontation was inevitable. Strikes "by coal, textile, and railroad workers" became a staple,[footnoteRef:2] kicked off by the 1919 Seattle General Strike and steel strike which impacted cities across the nation, and led to the collapse of union leadership and organization over the next decade. That and the fact that demand for jobs (as a result of the flood of immigrants and migrant workers looking for positions effectively reduced the leverage of the unions).[footnoteRef:3] [1: Glen Jeansonne, Transformation and Reaction: America, 1921-1945 (IL: Waveland Press, 2004), 64.] [2: Glen Jeansonne, Transformation and Reaction: America, 1921-1945 (IL: Waveland Press, 2004), 34.] [3: Laura Owen, "Worker Turnover in the 1920s: What Labor-Supply Arguments Don't Tell Us," The Journal of Economic History, vol. 55, no. 4 (1995): 822.]

The strong arm of government, rather than break the monopolists and businesses that exploited labor for higher profits, catered to the demands of Big Business and routinely break the backs of strikers, unleashing police and military on them in order to get production going again.

In this manner the businessmen prevailed and their success was reflected in the new high-rises and skyscrapers -- the architecture of the future -- that began to dominate the urban city skylines: "steal and glass, symbolizing the triumph of industrial capitalism."[footnoteRef:4] When it came to the labor-capital conflict, the post-War government of the 1920s was more pro-business than pro-laborer, just as the "national leadership of the Invisible Empire made opposition to strikes and 'labor agitators' core elements of the order's principles."[footnoteRef:5] [4: Glen Jeansonne, Transformation and Reaction: America, 1921-1945 (IL: Waveland Press, 2004), 94.] [5: Thomas Pegram, One Hundred Percent American: The Rebirth and Decline of the Ku Klux Klan (IL: Ivan R. Dee, 2011), 34.]