Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2012
Although historians have thoroughly discussed the impact of transformations in the workplace and the corporate structure that accompanied the rise of modern business enterprises, Professor Santos argues that they have ignored the traditional firms that continued to exist amid these changes. Constituting a significant portion of companies operating in the industrial economy, firms like Byers employed simple systems of managerial control based on the entrepreneurs' personal authority and property interest in the business. While labor policy at modern corporations was shaped by the managers' need to establish administrative control over the production and distribution systems, Byers's labor policy was defined by family attitude and the company's history.
1 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar; Chandler, , “The Emergence of Managerial Capitalism,” Business History Review 58 (Winter 1984): 473–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Nelson, Daniel, Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880–1920 (Madison, Wis., 1975)Google Scholar; Nelson, , “Taylorism and the Workers at Bethlehem Steel, 1898–1901,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 101 (Oct. 1977): 487–505Google Scholar, provides a good case study of the implementation of scientific management at Bethlehem Steel.
3 Montgomery, David, “Worker Control of Machine Production in the 19th Century,” Labor History 17 (Fall 1976): 485–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles (New York, 1979)Google Scholar. Control has been a recurring issue in much of the literature of the last ten years. Harry Braverman, for example, argued that, given the nature of capitalist society, the capitalist desires control and profit above all else. Since in hiring workers he only buys the potential for labor, he must find ways to secure the full usefulness of the labor power he has purchased. This requires taking as much control of the labor process away from the worker as is feasible. See Braverman, Harry, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1974)Google Scholar. Other writers are less doctrinaire. See, for example, Edwards, Richard, Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1979)Google Scholar, who argues that “to understand the reason for the workplace hierarchy and to comprehend the twentieth-century transformation of the labor process we need to focus on the profit motive.” Stone, Katherine, “The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry,” Review of Radical Political Economics 6 (Summer 1974): 61–95Google Scholar, is an interesting case study of the steel industry; Stone argues that the nineteenth-century system of autonomous worker control came into conflict with the employer's need to expand production without giving workers a substantial share of the profits.
4 Edwards, Contested Terrain, 34–36.
5 Statistics derived from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States, 1910: Manufactures, 8: 206–9Google Scholar; Fourteenth Census of the United States, 1920: Manufactures, 8: 85–87.
6 Social commentators, pundits, and historians all have noted the effects of corporate steel's dominance in Pittsburgh. Perhaps the first systematic analysis of the relationship between corporate power and urban life was the Pittsburgh Survey, a six-volume study commissioned by the Russell Sage Foundation and published between 1910 and 1914. The most recent is Couvares, Francis, The Remaking of Pittsburgh: Class and Culture in an Industrializing City, 1877–1919 (Albany, NY., 1984)Google Scholar.
7 All attempts to find an alternative to puddling iron failed before 1930. Vibrating furnaces and other efforts to duplicate the motions of the highly skilled puddler failed to produce wrought iron of the consistent quality that came from the metallurgical reactions of mixing limestone, coke, and pig iron and combined with human skill. For a description of the puddling process, see Aston, James and Story, Edward, Wrought Iron: Its Manufacture, Characteristics, and Applications (Pittsburgh, Pa., 1959), chap. 2Google Scholar; Wilding Picture Productions in Cooperation with the A. M. Byers Company, Eternally Yours: The Story of Wrought Iron, n.d.; Fitch, John, The Steel Workers, Pittsburgh Survey (New York, 1910), 3Google Scholar: chap. 4; “Byers News Letter,” 3, no. 7, 1933, A. M. Byers Collection, Archives of Industrial Society, University of Pittsburgh Libraries, Pittsburgh, Pa. [hereafter, AIS]; “Oldster into Alloys," The Bulletin-Index, 19 Dec. 1940; James Aston, “Byers New Process for Wrought Iron,” Iron Age, 8 Aug. 1929, 341–44; “Byers New Puddle Process Attracts World's Attention,” National Labor Tribune, 4 Dec. 1930; Davis, James J., The Iron Puddler: My Life in the Rolling Mills and What Came of It (Indianapolis, Ind., 1922), chap. 13Google Scholar, provides a colorful description of work in the rolling mill.
8 Alexander Byers's biography has been drawn from several sources, including obituary notices in The Amalgamated Journal, The Pittsburg Dispatch, The Pittsburg Leader, The Pittsburg Post, The Pittsburg Press, The Pittsburg Times—all 20 Sept. 1900; The Pittsburg Bulletin, 22 Sept. 1900; New York Times, 21 Sept. 1900; Iron Age, 27 Sept. 1900. Also of use were: Script used by J. F. Byers in presenting the movie Eternally Yours, undated typescript, personal papers of Mrs. E. P. B., McKees Rocks, Pa.; Godcharles, Frederic A., ed., Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania Biography (New York, 1945), 395–98Google Scholar; Jordan, John W., ed., Genealogical and Personal History of Western Pennsylvania (New York, 1915), 117–20Google Scholar; Reed, George Irving, ed., Century Cyclopedia of History and Biography of Pennsylvania (Chicago, 1904), 89–90Google Scholar; The Manufactories and Manufacturers of Pennsylvania of the Nineteenth Century (Philadelphia, Pa., 1875), 332–33Google Scholar; “Oldster into Alloys.”
9 For a brief synopsis of labor relations in the early iron industry, see Sullivan, William A., The Industrial Worker in Pennsylvania, 1800–1840 (Harrisburg, Pa., 1955), 59–71Google Scholar; Swetnam, George, “Labor-Management Relations in Pennsylvania's Steel Industry, 1800–1959,” Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 62 (Oct. 1979): 321–24Google Scholar.
10 Frasure, William Wayne, Longevity of Manufacturing Concerns in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh, Pa., 1952), 151–53Google Scholar.
11 Poor's, and Moody's, , Manual Consolidated—Industrial Section, pt. 2 (New York, 1923)Google Scholar; see Poor's Manual of Industrials and Public Utilities (New York, 1912)Google Scholar; Poor's Manual of Industrials (New York, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1918)Google Scholar; Poor's, and Moody's, , Poor's Manual of Industrials (New York, 1927–1940)Google Scholar; Poor's, and Moody's, , Manual: Moody's Analysis of Investments (New York, 1924–1940)Google Scholar. Also see, “Oldster into Alloys.”
12 Iron workers were paid by the ton. The rate was set in negotiations between the union and the manufacturers and fixed to the selling price of iron, thus the term sliding scale. Workers were subject to raises or cuts depending on the market price of iron, though a minimum rate guranteed that wages would not fall below a certain point. The 1904 scale allowed eastern manufacturers to pay $1.25 per ton less than the western scale. National Labor Tribune, 16 June 1904; Hyde City 46 Lodge Report, Amalgamated Journal, 7 July 1904; also see Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 6 July 1904.
13 For more on the walkout and split between finishers and puddlers, see Hyde City Lodge Reports, Amalgamated Journal, 14, 28 July, 1 Sept. 1904Google Scholar; 26 Jan. 1905. Also see Pride of Clearfield 47 Lodge Report, Amalgamated Journal, 30 March 1905.
14 For more on the on the strike and its outcome, see Amalgamated Journal, 24 May, 5 July to 20 Dec. 1906; “Signed Scales,” Amalgamated Journal, 18 July 1907; Pittsburg Press, July to Aug. 1906; and the following for July 1906: National Labor Tribune, Pittsburg Post, Pittsburgh Gazette Times, and Pittsburg Leader.
15 According to one estimate, the number of puddlers between 1885 and 1910 dropped from 40,000 to 2,000, with no young men learning the trade to replace those who retired. See “Puddling Trade's Unusual State,” National Labor Tribune, 11 Aug. 1910.
16 The puddlers decided to take the name of the old pre-Amalgamated puddlers union, for “sentimental reasons.” Because the puddlers had been losing power within the AA since the 1880s, many believed that the first Sons of Vulcan had been the last union that fully represented their craft interests.
17 For more on the founding of the Sons of Vulcan, see National Labor Tribune, 14, 24, 28 Feb., 7, 14 March 1907; Pittsburg Dispatch, 11 March 1907; Pittsburgh Gazette Times, 25 Feb., 11 March 1907; Pittsburg Press, 24 Feb., 24 March 1907; Pittsburg Leader, 11 March 1907; Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 25 Feb. 1907; T. R. Fraysier, Sable Forge 3, Sons of Vulcan, to the Editors, National Labor Tribune, 28 March 1907; Michael McCune, secretary-treasurer of the Sons of Vulcan, to National Labor Tribune, 15 Aug. 1907; “Signed Scales,” Amalgamated Journal, 18 July 1907; National Labor Tribune, 11 July 1907.
18 For more on these incidents, see National Labor Tribune, 8 Aug. 1907; 17 June 1909.
19 For more on the new mill opening, sec National Labor Tribune, 7 May 1908; Amalgamated Journal, 28 Jan. 1908. For more on the closing of the Clearfield plant, see Hyde City 46 and Pride of Clearfield 47 Lodge Reports and Mill Reports, Amalgamated Journal, 30 April 1908 to 7 Jan. 1909.
20 For more on the strike, see Girard 64 Lodge Reports, Amalgamated Journal, 20 May to 5 Aug. 1909; National Labor Tribune, 20 May to 26 Aug. 1909.
21 National Labor Tribune, 21 Jan., 29 April, 15 July 1909.
22 Ibid., 29 April, 10 June 1909.
23 The Underwood-Simmons Tariff considerably decreased duties on imports and placed such items as iron and steel on or near a free list.
24 For more on the strike, see National Labor Tribune, 3 July 1913 to 22 Jan. 1914.
25 For more on the scale and its implementation at Byers, see: Iron Age, 24 May, 7, 21 June 1917; “Convention Reports,” Amalgamated Journal, 10 May 1917; Girard 85 Lodge Reports, Amalgamated Journal, June 1917 to July 1919.
26 For more on the organization move and strike, see Girard 85 Lodge Reports, Amalgamated Journal, 7 to 21 June 1917; Iron Age, 21 June 1917.
27 Girard 85 Lodge Report, Amalgamated Journal, 14 March, 23 May 1918.
28 Interestingly, the Lodge Reports never made direct reference to the Sons. Comments about “those who broke from the AA over tactics” or the “mistakes of the past always foreshadowed arguments that the Amalgamated was a better union. For more on the local's efforts to downplay the bitterness created by the Sons, see Girard 85 Lodge Reports, Amalgamated Journal, 5 July 1917 to 25 July 1918.
29 Amalgamated Journal, 26 June to 17 July 1919; Iron Age, 17 July 1919.
30 Girard 85 Lodge Report, Amalgamated Journal, 12 Oct. 1922; Banner 120 Lodge Report, Amalgamated Journal, 1 April 1920.
31 Banner 120 Lodge Report, Amalgamated Journal, 7 Feb. 1924.
32 Girard 85 Lodge Report, Amalgamated Journal, 26 Aug. 1922; Banner 120 Lodge Report, Amalgamated Journal, 3 July 1924.
33 Ibid., 7 Feb. 1924. For more on labor relations at Byers during the 1920s, see Girard 85 Lodge Reports, Amalgamated Journal, July 1919 to Aug. 1930; Banner 120 Lodge Reports, Amalgamated Journal, July 1919 to May 1928.
34 For more on the Aston process, see “Patents Aston Process Manufacture of Wrought Iron,” A. M. Byers Company, Metallurgical Division Records, AIS; Aston and Story, Wrought Iron, chap. 4; Wilding Productions, Eternally Yours,– “Byers News Letter,” AIS; Aston, “Byers’ New Process,”341–44; Iron Age, 1 Nov. 1928, 16 Oct. 1930; “Oldster into Alloys”; “Byers New Puddle Process Attracts World's Attention,” New York Times, 19 Oct. 1930; Dominick P., interview with author, 18 Sept. 1981, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Larry L., interview with author, 25 Sept. 1981, Aliquippa, Pa.
35 Such interpretations have been made explicitly or implicitly by several historians. See, for example, Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital; Brody, David, Steelworkers in America: The Nonunion Era (Cambridge, Mass., 1960)Google Scholar; Edwards, Contested Terrain; Ozanne, Robert, “Union-Management Relations: McCormick Harvesting Machine Company, 1862–1886,” Labor History 4 (Spring 1963): 132–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ozanne, , Century of Labor-Management Relations at McCormick and International Harvester (Madison, Wis., 1967)Google Scholar; Soffer, Benson, “A Theory of Trade Union Development: The Role of the ‘Autonomous’ Workman,” Labor History 1 (Spring 1960): 141–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, “Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry.“
36 Quoted in Ambridge Daily Citizen, 8 Oct. 1930; Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, 8 Oct. 1930; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9 Oct. 1930.
37 Pittsburgh Press, 9 Oct. 1930.
38 Steel Labor, 25 Sept. 1936; Chester P., interview with author, 20 Aug. 1981, Pittsburgh, Pa.; John T., interview with author, 22 Sept. 1981, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Guy M., interview with author, 22 Sept. 1981, Pittsburgh, Pa. The LaFollette Committee on Civil Rights found that Byers spent $1,928.56 for spies. Quoted in Steel Labor, 21 Jan. 1938. For more on the organizing campaign and the policies of intimidation at the steel firms, see Steel Labor, Aug. 1936 to July 1937; Amalgamated Journal, June 1936 to July 1937; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 1936 to July 1937; Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, June 1936 to July 1937; Pittsburgh Press, June 1936 to July 1937; Kent, Raymond Patrick, “The Development of Industrial Unionism in the American Iron and Steel Industry” (Ph. D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1938)Google Scholar; Bernstein, Irving, Turbulent Years: History of the American Worker, 1933–1941 (Boston, 1969), chap. 10Google Scholar; Leo F., interview with author, 21 Aug. 1981, Ambridge, Pa.
39 See Clinton S. Golden to L. F. Rain, 23 March 1937, Memorandum Covering Sections of CIO Agreement To Be Adjusted at the Byers Plant; A. M. Byers Company Agreement, The United States Steelworkers of America—District 20, Baden, Pa., Pennsylvania Historical Collections and Labor Archives. University Libraries, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa. [hereafter, USWA]; Ambridge Daily Citizen, 12 April 1937; Steel Labor, 15 May 1937.
40 Several local union officials from both the Southside and Ambridge plants described similar experiences. John T., interview with author, 22 Sept. 1981; Guy M., interview with author, 22 Sept. 1981; Joseph M., interview with author, 20 Aug. 1981, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Larry L., interview with author, 25 Sept. 1981.
41 Ambridge Daily Citizen, 3 Oct. 1949; Larry L., interview with author, 25 Sept. 1981.
42 Larry L., interview with author, 25 Sept. 1981.
43 Chester P., interview with author, 20 Aug. 1981.
44 Zygmunt P., interview with author, 17 Aug. 1981, Pittsburgh, Pa.; James G., interview with author, 19 Aug. 1981, Ambridge, Pa.
45 Victor S., interview with author, 17 Aug. 1981, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Casmir S., interview with author, 21 Sept. 1981, Ambridge, Pa.
46 A. M. Byers Company, Personnel Records, AIS.
47 Nick Mraovich to Bert Hough, 16 Sept. 1947; Bert Hough to Nick Mraovich, 18 Sept. 1947, USWA; Larry L., interview with author, 25 Sept. 1981; Harry K., interview with author, 18 Aug. 1981, Baden, Pa.
48 Larry L., interview with author, 25 Sept. 1981; Joseph M., interview with author, 20 Aug. 1981, Pittsburgh, Pa.
