What I’ve been able to find:
- West Virginia Coal Mining
From the site (West Virginia Mine War):
The general causes of the conflict of 1921 developed over many years. From the time the first shovelful of coal was removed in West Virginia, the men who did the mining were exploited by those who owned the mineral.
So, typical, but then they say something very interesting:
A ray of hope appeared for the miners in 1890 when the United Mine Workers of America was organized by a merger of two earlier miners’ unions. By the turn of the century unionized mine operators in the northern and midwestern fields were putting pressure on the UMWA to organize the younger West Virginia industry, whose cheap coal was undercutting established markets.
It seems as if other unions, who unionized workers belonging to firms that could not compete with West Virginia’s firms (as these West Virginian coal firms were selling their coal for a cheaper price), instigated what comes down to a very violent strike. This is a deduction originating from ignorance (given that this is the first time I’ve ever researched this topic), but it seems as if the strike was designed more to disrupt business than to actually help the workers fight their way out of the plight which was forced upon them (although, the article admits that there was an alternative route: “One either accepted the system or moved on.” (Bold mine.)
Now, here is another website: Fatalities in the West Virginia Coal Mines
Their wages, as of 1913, were 48 cents per ton of coal. The annual wage for a pick miner was $737.62, an increase of $119.10 over the previous year’s earnings.
The article doesn’t specify why this wage increase took place, but it seems as if conditions were better than what the previous article suggests. If they had to go into virtual warfare in order to coerce the industry to make certain concessions, it doesn’t seem likely that the industry was coerced into raising their wages by $119 over a period of a year.
The article goes on, but this is less positive:
The feudal system (coal companies being the “Barons of the Manor” and coal miners being the serfs) made it possible for the miner to live in housing consisting of rough lumber with no indoor plumbing and to do his necessary shopping at the company store where he might purchase on credit. He was paid in a “play money” called “scrip” which was exchangeable only at the company store. He was required to furnish his own tools and blasting powder, which he purchased at the company store.
If he were married, the needs of a growing family usually outstripped his ability to provide for them on the wages he earned, thus most of them were perpetually in debt to the company store. Most married miners had a little kitchen garden to produce some of their food needs. When his wife had need of obstetrical attention, or if there were family illnesses, the company doctor was called in, and the miner had that expense deducted from his wages. more than one miner, at the end of a pay period, would pick up an empty pay envelope because his indebtedness had taken all he earned.
What I don’t get is that if conditions were so bad, why didn’t the pick miner leave the industry?
A miner’s sons would often follow him into the mines. The sons had grown up with mining and it was all they knew. It is not uncommon in these MINE REPORTS to see not only fathers and sons killed in a mine explosion, but to see many brothers perish, too.
So, the conditions were not bad enough for a son to realize that he would live in poverty and despair. Instead, it was likely for the son to follow the father into the business. Something is not making much sense.
The daily living conditions of coal miners “pre-Unions” is so well known that historians need only consult older family members for more details. Mr. William O. Williams, now deceased, had worked in the mines of Logan, Boone, and Kanawha Counties, also in Pittsburgh, Pa., for 40 years and spoke of coal mining, as he had known it, as being “The meanest life in the world”. He spoke of bad air, miners being trapped behind smoke and being Unable to get out, pins not holding and causing the slate to fall, water seeping into the mine shafts making working conditions damp and cold, and the sheer physical agony of working in a narrow seam of coal all stooped over, or laboring on his knees in a puddle of water for the entire duration of a shift.
This reeks of dishonesty. Not that Mr. William O. Williams is lying per sé, but that it seems likely that there is information being left out. Compare these conditions to the conditions that those “extreme fishermen” (those fishermen that you see on TV). They go through horrible living conditions during the months at sea, but they accept these conditions because they get paid a lot. In other words, the benefits outweigh the costs. If we accept a priori that people are rational, then obviously this was the case for the mine worker in West Virginia.
And, the most important excerpt:
Harsh working conditions, and inability of miners and coal companies to negotiate and make changes, led to militant unionizing efforts, which were eventually given the stamp of approval by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
So, Roosevelt pretty much legally justified the union’s violation of the company’s owners private property rights. The entire thing reeks of “appeal to emotion”. For example:
Even with improving working conditions, mining was still dangerous work.
Sago Mine disaster: Clearly, the State must step in! The workers are too stupid to make the decision of whether or not the benefits do outweigh the costs themselves!
This site is even more insightful: Globalsecurity.org.
Companies figured that they could increase their control by importing miners from a variety of areas such as Russia, southern Italy, and Austria-Hungary. They came from countries with oppressive systems;…
Obviously, since they came from countries with oppressive governments the fact that they decided to work in these companies had nothing to do with the fact that the situation at the mines was superior to the alternative situations they could have chosen to put themselves in.
The United Mine Workers of America felt compelled to unionize Appalachia after the turn of the century. The Central Competitive Field companies agreed to unionize if the unions could force Appalachian mines to pay their employees the same wages as those in the CCF. The union would lose its credibility if it failed to compel the organization of the Appalachian fields.
If one accepts the first site to be true, then the above is pretty insightful. It could be that these unions operated under the veneer of “workers’ conditions” to simply force the costs of coal from West Virginia to go up.
This would certainly be an interesting case study for somebody to research. If I wasn’t broke, I would probably think about doing some research myself.