Labor, Law, and Ludlow
Spring 2019
The American West was characterized as an erratic and lawless society, one devoid of rule and structure, yet promised an individualistic and free American experience. While the West promised the world a new opportunity than one could find on the Eastern Seaboard, it could not make the promise that the same problems that arise from corrupt governance and abusive power would not be factors found within the Western experience. One may not have prophesized that the labor disputes that plagued the Northeast would follow the new settlers west. These new labor disputes placed in regions of collusion in government and business without proper checks and balances, places like Ludlow in Southern Colorado, would prove both catastrophic and fatal.
The theory of disaster when unchecked power monopolizes proved true at the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company in Ludlow, Colorado on April 20th, 1914. Eleven years prior, the labor union “United Mine Workers of America,” led ten thousand people with a list of demands on a walkout;[1] of these demands included an eight-hour work day, recognition of the union, fair pay, sovereign trade, and enforcement of already existing mining safety laws.[2] These unenforced mining laws, as well as unenforced law in general, would be one leading factor in the escalation and ultimate conflict at Ludlow.
The collusion between the state of Colorado and the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company would inadvertently lead to the massacre at Ludlow. Had the government enforced the mining laws already on the books, all the while keeping the Colorado Fuel & Iron company in check and dealing with the strikers lawfully, it is plausible the Ludlow massacre could have been avoided. If the state of Colorado did not enforce its laws when it comes to mine safety, and therefore creates a business culture in which it was not the company’s duty to create a safe working environment, safety issues then fell on the shoulders of the miner themselves. If it is not the responsibility of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company to provide a safe working environment, neither would it be their duty to pay for it. Thus, the unhealthy environment in South Colorado was able to flourish. The state of Colorado’s inability to not regulate the businesses operating within their territory, but also their own militia, exasperated the already fragile situation. By not enforcing the law, the state allowed a climate for violence to escalate.
From an economic perspective, had the law been enforced and a fine large enough been in place, the company would be incentivized to foster and maintain a safe working environment for its workers. Given that the fine for breaking labor laws would be larger than the cost of maintaining the safe working environment, it would be in the best interest of the company to invest in those areas. The problem with a lack of any real enforcement system is not only that it is corrupt, but it shifts the burden of safety measures from the company onto the employee, who now has the responsibility of “not getting hurt” in a highly-dangerous field of work.
The lack of governmental integrity had various other byproducts and externalities as well. Knowing that the government had not been regulating and enforcing its own rules, the company could possess an unchecked, despotic monopoly on power. In Ludlow, it is documented that militiamen were purposefully attempting to incite workers on strike; there are additional reports that accuse the militiamen of threatening young children, as well as acts of robbery, and coerced donation.[3] When completely powerless and stripped of autonomy, it is not surprising that the workers would resort to violent means. The Colorado State Federation of Labor report on Colorado militarism encapsulates Ludlow public sentiment in the passage, “let us no longer pretend that this is a country for free men; let us openly announce that the dictator’s will is our law, and let us blow the constitution to shreds at the mouth of the mine owner’s machine gun.”[4] The militarism of the Colorado National Guard led to a problem of circular escalation, where the dictatorial control of the workers lives led to an increasing sentiment of violence from the public, which led to increased militarism, in turn further radicalizing the public sentiment, so on and so forth.
Owner of Colorado Fuel & Iron John D. Rockefeller Jr., perhaps in an effort to save public face, wrote a synopsis of what went wrong and what could have gone right, two years after the massacre, in 1916. Perhaps his most important articulation in his piece was of the relationship between labor and capital, and of an economic fallacy that he rightly saw as flawed. He wrote of the labor-capital conflict as predicated upon “the theory that the wealth of the world is absolutely limited, and that if one man gets more, another necessarily gets less.”[5] The ramifications of this zero-sum theory is that it must be true that if capital raises wages, capital will have less operating money; inversely, if labor is the one doing the work, any money taken from them is theft. Under this theory creates a polarized and antagonistic relationship between both capital and labor, where it becomes necessary to overpower the other. It is of no surprise that under a situation like this, that if one party is granted unchecked power, that they will overpower the other, just as what happened at Ludlow.
However, in reality this theory is not true. There is no finite pie that must be shared between all parties. The truth of the matter is, with increased technological advancement and efficiency techniques, the pie is ever-expanding. This is true regarding the 8-hour workday demanded by the United Mine Workers of America, which is just one of many examples. Rockefeller, who experimented with the 8-hour workday in his company, found that when the miners worked the 8-hour day as opposed to the 9-hour and 10-hour day, the amount of money saved was greater than the amount of money lost.[6] The savings attributable mainly to overhead expenses, as the marginal productivity of the worker each hour following the primary eight hours was less than the cost of keeping the mine open. Void of economic fallacy, it is completely plausible for both capital and labor to get along, and even work together to create a larger pie to share amongst all parties.
Under the assumption that the prosperity of one party must have been taken from the other party, an inevitable conflict ensues between the working class and the business-owning class. With antagonism and ill-will towards one another, both parties will try to overpower the other. In Ludlow, the state of Colorado gave the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company unchecked power, power which they used unjustly and tyrannically. The massacre at Ludlow could possibly have been avoided, if it were not for the culture of antagonism toward one another, nor the unchecked power granted to the Colorado militia and Colorado Fuel & Iron Company by the governor. However, like all of history before and after the events in Southern Colorado in 1914, there are lessons to be learned. Lessons of unchecked, monopolistic power, lessons of labor and business qualms, and lessons of law.
[1] Marilynn S. Johnson, “Violence in the West: the Johnson County Range War and the Ludlow Massacre,” Boston College (2009). Pg. 23.
[2] Marilynn S. Johnson, “Violence in the West: the Johnson County Range War and the Ludlow Massacre,” Boston College (2009). Pg. 20.
[3] Marilynn S. Johnson, “Violence in the West: the Johnson County Range War and the Ludlow Massacre,” Boston College (2009). Pg. 100–101, 103.
[4] Marilynn S. Johnson, “Violence in the West: the Johnson County Range War and the Ludlow Massacre,” Boston College (2009). Pg. 102.
[5] Marilynn S. Johnson, “Violence in the West: the Johnson County Range War and the Ludlow Massacre,” Boston College (2009). Pg. 138–139.
[6] Marilynn S. Johnson, “Violence in the West: the Johnson County Range War and the Ludlow Massacre,” Boston College (2009). Pg. 92.
