The progress of science and spread of industrialization among the wealthy self-governing nations, aside from bettering the quality of life, helped in part to flush out the social inequalities that had prevailed for so long. Efficiency is key to any successful industry. Meaning for any manufacturer they have to produce products of quality better or at the least in bar with all other similar or substitute products. While at the same time producing at least-cost so to turn in a profit. To any industry there are few options available to produce cheaply. They can control the resources going in to make the product. Using lower quality or fewer numbers of resources. However a more efficient way of producing cheaply is by simply using cheap labor. Especially when the process of manufacturing is straightforward and does not require individualistic touches. To put a string on a shoe or a label on a can does not require much thought or deliberation. Anyone can do it, it does not require specialization. That was precisely what the owners of the industry figured out.
The acquisition of many farmlands for use of factories freed a large portion of the population to work in manufacturing. Also the conflicts raging in and the industrialization of Europe had sent many flocking to the U.S. Like their counterpart former farmers in the U.S, many of the immigrants were poor and unskilled. Leaving them with no choice to earn a living except in manufacturing. A new class emerged a working class of men and women and before it was checked and outlawed, of children. This working class produced what a minority of the population could afford to buy. More then often laboring under conditions that was abhorrent by any standard of judgment. They worked long hours, sixty or a little more then that a week, more often every day. They worked in facilities that were only suitable for the unfeeling product they produced. The list of injustices and sickening conditions under which they labored is long and at the time it must have seemed to the workers they would never be rid of them. But also a product (perhaps) of a wealthy freethinking society is the emergence of individuals who recognize injustices and try their best to correct them. Often these individuals seek others who are of the same mind and convictions. Or perhaps succeed in converting the indifferent or ignorant to sympathizers to their cause and together they form unions and pressure groups. At the beginning perhaps the different unions and groups have tried to appeal to the 'noblesse oblige' of the owners. However when such an appeal to pity and justice does not produce any long lasting, as unfortunately it often does not, they took the legal recourse.
Laws to better the working conditions in the industrial sector did not pass without hindrance. A prevailing attitude of the time was effort equaled to wealth or at least to moderate economic comfort. Which is perhaps true to some extent and in some instances. Aside from that there was the constitution and the article of contract and also the economic philosophy of laissez-faire, which warns the government from interfering with the free flow of commerce. Which perhaps explains why many lawmakers were recusant to any idea of reform. Recognizing that any such law would have to be policed in order to be effective and therefore it would conflict with the article of contract and laissez-faire.
But also a product of the time was that a large number of women and children were available and willing to work. When the concerned parties for the well being of the industrial workers failed to produce a law limiting the amount of hours for all workers, they sought and succeeded in passing one for women and children. By pointing out that long working hours were detriment to the health of children and the future and current mothers of the race. Especially when many of the jobs women and children were involved in required them to be working while standing. These laws were passed between the years of 1840 and 1850 and at the time were seldom enforced in the few states where they existed. Later amendments to the laws however rectified that.
But what of men workers? A larger workforce then women and more specialized they favored change through union actions. Those few who worked in an industry alongside of female were also not left out since when a law changes the condition of their female co-workers it automatically changes theirs. That was what many reformers had intended. By changing the conditions of women they are able to change the overall condition of the workplace. They simply used women as their appeal for change. In doing so they had to claim there was a major difference between men and women workers. They had to agree to, and maybe they even believed, that because women were weaker then men, they needed laws to protect them. That was the contention of the so-called Brandeis' brief. These laws though at the time worked proved to be a hindrance to many future attempts for women progress. Especially when just saying women were weaker then men was not enough.
Before the Brandeis brief reformers received a major set back to the hour-limit law. It was because of the Ritchie v. People case of 1895 that the Illinois Supreme Court delivered their blow. Interpreting the 14th amendment the court held to the opinion that an hour-limit law for women was class classifying them, therefore discriminatory and therefore illegal. The court wanted the people's lawyer to show that it was reasonable for an hour-limit law for women. Instead of using the court's decision in future cases for their benefit and try and find other reasons for an hour-limit law, future litigation wanted to provide the courts with their coveted reasons. The Brandeis brief delivered. It provided lawmakers with a detailed account of why an hour-limit law was important for women. Before it was the lawmakers opinions and beliefs unsupported by evidence, as they were though mostly also based on opinions and not facts, until the brief. It was the ammunition with which they fired whenever challenged to give women the same status as men under the law.
Another fight that had used women's suffrage as the basis for its claim was the fight for minimum wage. Again reformers instead of trying convincing men dominated industry and union of the validity of their claim they thought of acting on their behalf. However not by failing a claim on behalf of all workers men and women but again using women as the conduit for change. Citing again that women were the weaker sex and therefore needed protection. In 1920 however things changed.
During that year the amendment allowing women to vote was finally rectified. Giving women right groups a very powerful with which to bargain. Less was the effort for change through litigation then through influencing congress to act. Taking however the venues of fights from the courtrooms to the street. Instead of lawyers arguing against each other with the judge as mediator in waiting to be persuaded, social right groups vied with each other to influence politician for support. Some groups still held to the opinions of old. That the bases for intervention were not a general health issues but that of women suffrage. Fortunately they eventually lost.
Perhaps finally understanding the power of the union in influencing public policy the social rights advocates started pressuring the true law makers as intended by the constitution, the politicians. The 1930 saw the advancement of the many social solution proposed by the women right groups and male unions. It saw the birth of the social security program. It saw the establishment of a minimum wage, which passed unchallenged by judges afraid of the newly elected president's promise of reform. The changes during the 1930 proved right reformers who advocated reform for both sexes. As if to further proof their policy of action the hour-limit back fired on the reformers who adopted women suffrage as their bases of change. Hour-limit laws disqualified women from overtime and promotion.
The fight for social right is worthy cause that merits the efforts to gain them. Perhaps that is why reformers who used women suffrage as their line of action may be forgiven the harms they had not intended nor could have foreseen.
Topic # 2
Sultan Altemimi
The acquisition of many farmlands for use of factories freed a large portion of the population to work in manufacturing. Also the conflicts raging in and the industrialization of Europe had sent many flocking to the U.S. Like their counterpart former farmers in the U.S, many of the immigrants were poor and unskilled. Leaving them with no choice to earn a living except in manufacturing. A new class emerged a working class of men and women and before it was checked and outlawed, of children. This working class produced what a minority of the population could afford to buy. More then often laboring under conditions that was abhorrent by any standard of judgment. They worked long hours, sixty or a little more then that a week, more often every day. They worked in facilities that were only suitable for the unfeeling product they produced. The list of injustices and sickening conditions under which they labored is long and at the time it must have seemed to the workers they would never be rid of them. But also a product (perhaps) of a wealthy freethinking society is the emergence of individuals who recognize injustices and try their best to correct them. Often these individuals seek others who are of the same mind and convictions. Or perhaps succeed in converting the indifferent or ignorant to sympathizers to their cause and together they form unions and pressure groups. At the beginning perhaps the different unions and groups have tried to appeal to the 'noblesse oblige' of the owners. However when such an appeal to pity and justice does not produce any long lasting, as unfortunately it often does not, they took the legal recourse.
Laws to better the working conditions in the industrial sector did not pass without hindrance. A prevailing attitude of the time was effort equaled to wealth or at least to moderate economic comfort. Which is perhaps true to some extent and in some instances. Aside from that there was the constitution and the article of contract and also the economic philosophy of laissez-faire, which warns the government from interfering with the free flow of commerce. Which perhaps explains why many lawmakers were recusant to any idea of reform. Recognizing that any such law would have to be policed in order to be effective and therefore it would conflict with the article of contract and laissez-faire.
But also a product of the time was that a large number of women and children were available and willing to work. When the concerned parties for the well being of the industrial workers failed to produce a law limiting the amount of hours for all workers, they sought and succeeded in passing one for women and children. By pointing out that long working hours were detriment to the health of children and the future and current mothers of the race. Especially when many of the jobs women and children were involved in required them to be working while standing. These laws were passed between the years of 1840 and 1850 and at the time were seldom enforced in the few states where they existed. Later amendments to the laws however rectified that.
But what of men workers? A larger workforce then women and more specialized they favored change through union actions. Those few who worked in an industry alongside of female were also not left out since when a law changes the condition of their female co-workers it automatically changes theirs. That was what many reformers had intended. By changing the conditions of women they are able to change the overall condition of the workplace. They simply used women as their appeal for change. In doing so they had to claim there was a major difference between men and women workers. They had to agree to, and maybe they even believed, that because women were weaker then men, they needed laws to protect them. That was the contention of the so-called Brandeis' brief. These laws though at the time worked proved to be a hindrance to many future attempts for women progress. Especially when just saying women were weaker then men was not enough.
Before the Brandeis brief reformers received a major set back to the hour-limit law. It was because of the Ritchie v. People case of 1895 that the Illinois Supreme Court delivered their blow. Interpreting the 14th amendment the court held to the opinion that an hour-limit law for women was class classifying them, therefore discriminatory and therefore illegal. The court wanted the people's lawyer to show that it was reasonable for an hour-limit law for women. Instead of using the court's decision in future cases for their benefit and try and find other reasons for an hour-limit law, future litigation wanted to provide the courts with their coveted reasons. The Brandeis brief delivered. It provided lawmakers with a detailed account of why an hour-limit law was important for women. Before it was the lawmakers opinions and beliefs unsupported by evidence, as they were though mostly also based on opinions and not facts, until the brief. It was the ammunition with which they fired whenever challenged to give women the same status as men under the law.
Another fight that had used women's suffrage as the basis for its claim was the fight for minimum wage. Again reformers instead of trying convincing men dominated industry and union of the validity of their claim they thought of acting on their behalf. However not by failing a claim on behalf of all workers men and women but again using women as the conduit for change. Citing again that women were the weaker sex and therefore needed protection. In 1920 however things changed.
During that year the amendment allowing women to vote was finally rectified. Giving women right groups a very powerful with which to bargain. Less was the effort for change through litigation then through influencing congress to act. Taking however the venues of fights from the courtrooms to the street. Instead of lawyers arguing against each other with the judge as mediator in waiting to be persuaded, social right groups vied with each other to influence politician for support. Some groups still held to the opinions of old. That the bases for intervention were not a general health issues but that of women suffrage. Fortunately they eventually lost.
Perhaps finally understanding the power of the union in influencing public policy the social rights advocates started pressuring the true law makers as intended by the constitution, the politicians. The 1930 saw the advancement of the many social solution proposed by the women right groups and male unions. It saw the birth of the social security program. It saw the establishment of a minimum wage, which passed unchallenged by judges afraid of the newly elected president's promise of reform. The changes during the 1930 proved right reformers who advocated reform for both sexes. As if to further proof their policy of action the hour-limit back fired on the reformers who adopted women suffrage as their bases of change. Hour-limit laws disqualified women from overtime and promotion.
The fight for social right is worthy cause that merits the efforts to gain them. Perhaps that is why reformers who used women suffrage as their line of action may be forgiven the harms they had not intended nor could have foreseen.
Topic # 2
Sultan Altemimi
No comments:
Post a Comment