Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie
"Ask if either of these gentlemen belongs to the blast-furnace workers
who banked the furnaces contrary to agreement."
The man returned and said "No." I replied: "In that case go down and
tell them that I shall be pleased to have them come up."
Of course they were received with genuine warmth and cordiality and we
sat and talked about New York, for some time, this being their first
visit.
"Mr. Carnegie, we really came to talk about the trouble at the works,"
the minister said at last.
"Oh, indeed!" I answered. "Have the men voted?"
"No," he said.
My rejoinder was:
"You will have to excuse me from entering upon that subject; I said I
never would discuss it until they voted by a two-thirds majority to
start the mills. Gentlemen, you have never seen New York. Let me take
you out and show you Fifth Avenue and the Park, and we shall come back
here to lunch at half-past one."
This we did, talking about everything except the one thing that they
wished to talk about. We had a good time, and I know they enjoyed
their lunch. There is one great difference between the American
working-man and the foreigner. The American is a man; he sits down at
lunch with people as if he were (as he generally is) a gentleman born.
It is splendid.
They returned to Pittsburgh, not another word having been said about
the works. But the men soon voted (there were very few votes against
starting) and I went again to Pittsburgh. I laid before the committee
the scale under which they were to work. It was a sliding scale based
on the price of the product. Such a scale really makes capital and
labor partners, sharing prosperous and disastrous times together. Of
course it has a minimum, so that the men are always sure of living
wages. As the men had seen these scales, it was unnecessary to go over
them. The chairman said:
"Mr. Carnegie, we will agree to everything. And now," he said
hesitatingly, "we have one favor to ask of you, and we hope you will
not refuse it."
"Well, gentlemen, if it be reasonable I shall surely grant it."
"Well, it is this: That you permit the officers of the union to sign
these papers for the men."
"Why, certainly, gentlemen! With the greatest pleasure! And then I
have a small favor to ask of you, which I hope you will not refuse, as
I have granted yours. Just to please me, after the officers have
signed, let every workman sign also for himself. You see, Mr.
Bennett, this scale lasts for three years, and some man, or body of
men, might dispute whether your president of the union had authority
to bind them for so long, but if we have his signature also, there
cannot be any misunderstanding."
There was a pause; then one man at his side whispered to Mr. Bennett
(but I heard him perfectly):
"By golly, the jig's up!"
So it was, but it was not by direct attack, but by a flank movement.
Had I not allowed the union officers to sign, they would have had a
grievance and an excuse for war. As it was, having allowed them to do
so, how could they refuse so simple a request as mine, that each free
and independent American citizen should also sign for himself. My
recollection is that as a matter of fact the officers of the union
never signed, but they may have done so. Why should they, if every
man's signature was required? Besides this, the workmen, knowing that
the union could do nothing for them when the scale was adopted,
neglected to pay dues and the union was deserted. We never heard of it
again. [That was in 1889, now twenty-seven years ago. The scale has
never been changed. The men would not change it if they could; it
works for their benefit, as I told them it would.]
Of all my services rendered to labor the introduction of the sliding
scale is chief. It is the solution of the capital and labor problem,
because it really makes them partners--alike in prosperity and
adversity. There was a yearly scale in operation in the Pittsburgh
district in the early years, but it is not a good plan because men and
employers at once begin preparing for a struggle which is almost
certain to come. It is far better for both employers and employed to
set no date for an agreed-upon scale to end. It should be subject to
six months' or a year's notice on either side, and in that way might
and probably would run on for years.
To show upon what trifles a contest between capital and labor may
turn, let me tell of two instances which were amicably settled by mere
incidents of seemingly little consequence. Once when I went out to
meet a men's committee, which had in our opinion made unfair demands,
I was informed that they were influenced by a man who secretly owned a
drinking saloon, although working in the mills. He was a great bully.
The sober, quiet workmen were afraid of him, and the drinking men were
his debtors. He was the real instigator of the movement.
We met in the usual friendly fashion. I was glad to see the men, many
of whom I had long known and could call by name. When we sat down at
the table the leader's seat was at one end and mine at the other. We
therefore faced each other. After I had laid our proposition before
the meeting, I saw the leader pick up his hat from the floor and
slowly put it on his head, intimating that he was about to depart.
Here was my chance.
"Sir, you are in the presence of gentlemen! Please be so good as to
take your hat off or leave the room!"
My eyes were kept full upon him. There was a silence that could be
felt. The great bully hesitated, but I knew whatever he did, he was
beaten. If he left it was because he had treated the meeting
discourteously by keeping his hat on, he was no gentleman; if he
remained and took off his hat, he had been crushed by the rebuke. I
didn't care which course he took. He had only two and either of them
was fatal. He had delivered himself into my hands. He very slowly took
off the hat and put it on the floor. Not a word did he speak
thereafter in that conference. I was told afterward that he had to
leave the place. The men rejoiced in the episode and a settlement was
harmoniously effected.
When the three years' scale was proposed to the men, a committee of
sixteen was chosen by them to confer with us. Little progress was made
at first, and I announced my engagements compelled me to return the
next day to New York. Inquiry was made as to whether we would meet a
committee of thirty-two, as the men wished others added to the
committee--a sure sign of division in their ranks. Of course we
agreed. The committee came from the works to meet me at the office in
Pittsburgh. The proceedings were opened by one of our best men, Billy
Edwards (I remember him well; he rose to high position afterwards),
who thought that the total offered was fair, but that the scale was
not equable. Some departments were all right, others were not fairly
dealt with. Most of the men were naturally of this opinion, but when
they came to indicate the underpaid, there was a difference, as was to
be expected. No two men in the different departments could agree.
Billy began:
"Mr. Carnegie, we agree that the total sum per ton to be paid is fair,
but we think it is not properly distributed among us. Now, Mr.
Carnegie, you take my job--"
"Order, order!" I cried. "None of that, Billy. Mr. Carnegie 'takes no
man's job.' Taking another's job is an unpardonable offense among
high-classed workmen."
There was loud laughter, followed by applause, and then more laughter.
I laughed with them. We had scored on Billy. Of course the dispute was
soon settled. It is not solely, often it is not chiefly, a matter of
dollars with workmen. Appreciation, kind treatment, a fair
deal--these are often the potent forces with the American workmen.
Employers can do so many desirable things for their men at little
cost. At one meeting when I asked what we could do for them, I
remember this same Billy Edwards rose and said that most of the men
had to run in debt to the storekeepers because they were paid monthly.
Well I remember his words:
"I have a good woman for wife who manages well. We go into Pittsburgh
every fourth Saturday afternoon and buy our supplies wholesale for the
next month and save one third. Not many of your men can do this.
Shopkeepers here charge so much. And another thing, they charge very
high for coal. If you paid your men every two weeks, instead of
monthly, it would be as good for the careful men as a raise in wages
of ten per cent or more."
"Mr. Edwards, that shall be done," I replied.
It involved increased labor and a few more clerks, but that was a
small matter. The remark about high prices charged set me to thinking
why the men could not open a cooeperative store. This was also
arranged--the firm agreeing to pay the rent of the building, but
insisting that the men themselves take the stock and manage it. Out of
that came the Braddock's Cooeperative Society, a valuable institution
for many reasons, not the least of them that it taught the men that
business had its difficulties.
The coal trouble was cured effectively by our agreeing that the
company sell all its men coal at the net cost price to us (about half
of what had been charged by coal dealers, so I was told) and arranging
to deliver it at the men's houses--the buyer paying only actual cost
of cartage.
There was another matter. We found that the men's savings caused them
anxiety, for little faith have the prudent, saving men in banks and,
unfortunately, our Government at that time did not follow the British
in having post-office deposit banks. We offered to take the actual
savings of each workman, up to two thousand dollars, and pay six per
cent interest upon them, to encourage thrift. Their money was kept
separate from the business, in a trust fund, and lent to such as
wished to build homes for themselves. I consider this one of the best
things that can be done for the saving workman.
It was such concessions as these that proved the most profitable
investments ever made by the company, even from an economical
standpoint. It pays to go beyond the letter of the bond with your men.
Two of my partners, as Mr. Phipps has put it, "knew my extreme
disposition to always grant the demands of labor, however
unreasonable," but looking back upon my failing in this respect, I
wish it had been greater--much greater. No expenditure returned such
dividends as the friendship of our workmen.
We soon had a body of workmen, I truly believe, wholly unequaled--the
best workmen and the best men ever drawn together. Quarrels and
strikes became things of the past. Had the Homestead men been our own
old men, instead of men we had to pick up, it is scarcely possible
that the trouble there in 1892 could have arisen. The scale at the
steel-rail mills, introduced in 1889, has been running up to the
present time (1914), and I think there never has been a labor
grievance at the works since. The men, as I have already stated,
dissolved their old union because there was no use paying dues to a
union when the men themselves had a three years' contract. Although
their labor union is dissolved another and a better one has taken its
place--a cordial union between the employers and their men, the best
union of all for both parties.
It is for the interest of the employer that his men shall make good
earnings and have steady work. The sliding scale enables the company
to meet the market; and sometimes to take orders and keep the works
running, which is the main thing for the working-men. High wages are
well enough, but they are not to be compared with steady employment.
The Edgar Thomson Mills are, in my opinion, the ideal works in respect
to the relations of capital and labor. I am told the men in our day,
and even to this day (1914) prefer two to three turns, but three turns