Labor laws in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century were shaky and did not allow employees to count on comprehensive support from either employers or the government. In their texts, Dollinger and Keller describe the hardships the working class faced during this period. According to Keller, “Congress is not preparing to defend the people of the United States” and instead “is planning to protect the capital of American speculators and investors” (285). This position reflects the belief that the authorities were much more concerned about capitalism in general than the issues of ordinary workers. While citing the example of the General Motors plant, Dollinger expresses a similar position by stating that “workers had no rights when they entered that plant” (346). The reluctance of the ruling elites to show support for the working class is due to the focus on economic processes within the country with an emphasis on the capitalist system. Stranded, the US economy was fragile and unstable during both World War I and the Great Depression. Therefore, ordinary employees felt vulnerable to the national labor organization system.
The exploitation of labor in difficult living conditions is a problem that both authors raise. For instance, Dollinger points out that along with low wages, employees of enterprises were forced to work in conditions of severe lack of food, proper medical access, and other problems that exacerbated the situation (346). In Keller’s text, the author puts more emphasis on the relationship between subordinates and supervisors, but her ideas are similar to those of Dollinger; she states that workers “have no enemies except their masters” (286). This is noteworthy that neither of the authors talks about the merits and benefits of working at different enterprises but, conversely, discusses exploitation and low levels of work safety as common and almost dominant phenomena. Under such conditions, it was impossible to count on protection and support. Moreover, being directly dependent on their employers, subordinates were forced to make concessions and accept the principles that were offered to them, although it was akin to disenfranchised duties. Thus, despite the absence of slavery in the country, the problems considered are similar to those at the time of the use of the slave workforce.
Pro-strike rhetoric as one of the potentially successful mechanisms for dealing with employer arbitrariness and poor working conditions is what both texts under consideration have in common. As Dollinger remarks, by taking part in the strike, the worker is transformed into a more conscientious employee capable of defending one’s individual interests (349). Keller also calls for a strike, but her arguments are based not only on labor but also on the political difficulties that people face, particularly at a time when their country is involved in a war (288). Despite the fact that the state in general and enterprises in particular address long-term tasks, forgetting about employees’ well-being and their rights means neglecting human resources. In addition, by following the practice of strikes, people have an opportunity to influence the situation not only in their enterprise but also in the country. According to Keller, a protest movement can engulf the entire nation and significantly affect both labor and political decisions (288). As a result, strike actions are rated as one of the few potentially effective tools to deal with labor difficulties.
Works Cited
Dollinger, Genora Johnson. “Striking Flint.” Voices of a People’s History in the United States, edited by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove, 2nd ed., Seven Stories Press, 2009, pp. 345-349.
Keller, Helen. “Strike Against War.” Voices of a People’s History in the United States, edited by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove, 2nd ed., Seven Stories Press, 2009, pp. 284-288.