Yes, I do think unions were the problem. They weren't losing 50% of their pay, they were losing, in the worst case, 18% of their pay. They were not being forced to work at all, they were free to quit at any point and many did, they were using brute force to coerce non-union workers to join their case, beating some half to the point of death and engaging in gun-fights with others that resulted in severe injury and in some cases death, plundering and burning buildings, and seizing control, through mob force, of a private factory, armed to the hilt and barracking a multi-million dollar investment. They were asked to peaceably leave MULTIPLE times, but when it became clear they would not return the PRIVATE PROPERTY THEY STOLE or apologise to the NON-UNION WORKERS for their abominable crimes and campaign of arson and destruction, Carnegie had no choice but to hire the Pinkerton army to dislodge them, which was quickly and efficiently done with minimal issues. I didn't learn any of this on Fox News, but from research into the history of Andrew Carnegie which was checked against other sources.
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
I have a hard time not being emotional when the fall of those unions in the beginning would’ve meant the displacing of all workers rights we’ve gained since then. Henry Frick was a traitor, going against Carnegie’s own wishes and attempted to cut their wages by over 1/5th, including increasing working hours to 12, after the wage decreases 3 years prior, equating to roughly half of what they had when unions gained what they wished at the Homestead. Frick, and many other businessman had a LONG history of using the Pinkertons to either infiltrate, attack, or destroy unions as… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
Did I say I admired Henry Frick? Is this another STRAW MAN FALLACY? I think it is. All I was doing was providing some historical context for you, a look at the other side, a counterpoint to the establishment narrative, and you started screaming and cursing at me. Do you think that's logical? Am I not allowed to provide context where context is needed?
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
No, but the goals align, and if those unions never pushed back against corporations in the slightest, you’d be working 12 hour shifts and over 60 hours a week, with likely no pay that would supplement your cost of living. Overall, the unions did much more good than harm, and if you take the stance of “they were the problem”, then it’s not unreasonable to assume that you were against what they did, including the ways they helped, which made a much stronger and long lasting impact on the workers and the future at large. I’m not unaware of the bad things some unions… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
12 hour shifts is not that bad, we're spoiled in America today. The unions were, from the start, infiltrated by socialist ideologies and some anarchists even, and were notoriously riotous and bloody when they didn't get what they wanted. And, also, you've STILL never addressed the fact that a considerable number of Carnegie's workforce WANTED to keep working and WANTED to not join the union, but the unionists responded by burning their houses to the ground. What about those poor workers, who, out of principle, refused to join the union? Did you know Carnegie gave them raises?
@9CJ6CB64mos4MO
And there were plenty of loyalists to Britain, the revolution itself was a minority group, and socialism was created in the wake OF the Industrial Revolution as a response to the inhumane conditions and treatment of the workers as a whole. The unions sometimes betrayed the interests of the workers, and in many cases, yes, they got bloody, so did we during the revolution. The union workers viewed non-union workers as traitors to their dreams of gaining better wages and conditions because, before that time, Frick lived to use non-union workers to inflict his wrath on them. I will never say that… Read more
