Recent Changes

Question 1
In response to Matt:

I agree that most of the strikes were over working conditions and wages. But also it wasn’t just that the companies didn’t want to raise wages. They also wanted to lower them from what they were. Also the Unions were dissolved because of the violence that broke out, so many people didn’t think that Unions were safe or good to be in.

Question 3
In response to Grey:

I don’t agree with the government getting involved at all. Yes, the strikers destroyed property, but if the government wanted to help they should have done it in more of a peaceful way. They federal troops were ordered to go in there and stop the strike and if violence broke out they were ordered to shoot? I agree the government should have noticed that the strikers weren’t at fault maybe after the 2 strike. The government should have gotten both sides together and solved the problem.

Question 2
In response to Laura's response:

I agree that that the strikes did put an idea in the public's mind, but that didn't do much. Because even the future strikes did little because that idea was easily crushed because the government went against them when the strikes. Even though the idea was there, its hopes were totally crushed.

Question 3
In response to Meghan's post, I agree that the government had taken the wrong steps with all four of the strikes and different measures may have produced less violent results. Since the goal of the government should have been to keep the peace, I think that her idea of interceding between the companies and workers in hopes of providing a settlement would have been a fitting solution.

Question 3
I do not agree with the government’s intervention. I believe that if the government continued to stay away from businesses affairs, the owners would have had to made changes for the workers. Because the government helped stop the strikes, businesses owners knew that nothing would have to changes because they had the side of the government. The government should have advised the businesses owners to have change or penalize them for not collective bargaining. This way the workers would have been happy and the government wouldn’t have to take anything major actions that would show that they were for a certain side.

Question 3
In nearly all of the strikes, the government seemed to purposefully go against the strikers in support of the corporations. In many instances, the government authorities fired on the mostly unarmed strikers killing and wounding many men. This is contrary to what the government's role aught to be. The government should have used its power solely to keep peace during strikes and not to interfere on either side.

Question 2
In response to Matt's post, I agree that the strikes largely failed in that many of them gave people a poor view on unions as a whole. However, some of these strikes actually gave the corporations a bad representation such as the case with the Pullman Strike. Overall, the strikes did weaken public support for their cause and forced many unions to move into secrecy.

Question 2
Most of the strikes were unsuccessful because the strikes did not change anything. After the strike works went back to work, usually with the same wage and hours. They were mainly unsuccessful because the government intervened and stop the strike. If the government had not stepped in all the times they did, owner would have had to make some changes. Also people were blacklisted with by the end of the strike, which put them out of work.

Question 2
Although the success of the strikes varied in the short term, they all contributed to a growing nationwide feeling that labor was an issue that needed to be dealt with. As result of the strikes, many labor unions were either totally wiped out or forced into secrecy. This led to an even greater deterioration of working conditions as the companies' control over the workers increased. Most of the strikes brought about even worse conditions for the workers.

Question 1
The workers reacted in strikes when companies cut wages, raised hours, or made work conditions more difficult. The companies treated works just as they treated the machines; they are all just interchangeable parts. During the strikes companies hired scabs so that production would not change. If the strikes did get violent, then the company owners would go to the government for help and most of the time federal troops would rush in to stop strikes. Also many companies blacklisted people who were involved with unions, so that unions wouldn’t get as much support.