Research Report:

An Analysis of Union Iron Works Foreman's Index Cards Dated 1908-1918

KEITH TERRY

Index

Index 2o5Index ofTables and FiguresIntroduction 206

A Short I lisrory of the Union Iron Works 206

I listoriography 207

An Overview of theWorkers ao8General I)emographie Overview 208

W’age Overview: 212

Employment Length Overview: 214

Analysis 215

Nationality and Race: 215

Wages: 216

Employment Length, Worker Age, and Labor Division: 218

Coneltision: 219

Index ofTables and Figures

Table t: Average Age 209

Table : \Vorker Skill Level 209

Table : Summary of Nationality 210

‘Fable : Detailed Nativity 210-211

Figure i: Average \\agc By Year 212

lable 5: Surninan’ \Vage I)ata 213

Table 6: Employment Length 214

fable : Nationality and Wages 215

‘Fable 8: Nationality and Skill Level 216

‘Fable : A Journeyman’s Wage Increases, 1917-1918 217

Figtire 2: Average Age of\Vorkers By Year 219

Image r: Sample Card — Front 221

Image 2: Sample Card — Back 221

Image : Card Storage Box 222

Image : Cart Loaded W’ith Boxes 222

Ex POST FACTO

206

This paper analyzes previously unused primary sotiree data, and attempts to place it in itsproper historiographical context. The data was gathered during a spring 2007 internship supportinga submission to the National Register of I listoric Places. lThc submission is for the Port of SanFrancisco, and Dr. Marjorie Dobkin is the consulting historian in charge of the submission. Thedata analyzed is a subset of a collection of Union Iron Works Foreman’s Index Cards housed at theSan Francisco Maritime Museum Library in Fort Mason, covering the period of 1908-1918. Thecards were donated to the library by Bethlehem Steel, and have not been previously analyzed,probably due to the technical challenges involved. There arc approximately 45,000 cards, measuringroughly inches each. The cards are stored in one-foot long archive boxes, and fifty-eight boxes arcrequired to store them. The cards have infomiation on both sides. On the front, one finds generalinformation such as name, address, natisitv. birth year (or age). position(s), the division(s) in whichthe employee worked, and freehand commentan-. On the back ofeach card, one finds up to ninerows of data for specific employment periods. Each row contains start and end dates, pay rate, shiftstart time, foreman’s name, and occasional commentary. If an employee worked enough periods, thatemployee has multiple cards,

In order to extract information from this fomidablc source, initial interpretation andextraCtif)n decisions s’ere required. After these decisions were made in consultation with Dr. Dobkinand Dr. Jules Tvgiel. a database was constructed. Several input timing tests were performed, dtiringwhich time the database was revised and finalized. With this information in hand, and aware of thetime pressures created by the semester structure, the next step was to determine a valid statisticalsampling method. Dr. Jtiles Tygiel of San Francisco State University kindly contributed his time andexpertise to ensure that the i% sample which was to be taken would be statistically valid. Thepreparation process was completed on February i3th, some three weeks after the beginning of thesemester. The data inptlt was completed on April 28th. lYic data then needed to be cleaned, error-checked, imported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and manipulated sothat it might be analyzed. This latter process was completed on May i7th. In total. the process ofsampling and converting the handwritten data into an analytical database took 175 hoots ofwork,spread across fotir months.

‘I’he analysis which follows leaves ample room for further investigation of the dataextracted from the Union Iron Works index cards. J3y summer of 2oo8 updated versions of thisdocument, along with Dr. Dobkins submis.sion to the National Register for I listoric Places shouldbe available to the pctblie at the Maritime Mtiseum Libran. ‘I’he Lihrarvwill also be given theelectronic database created in the course of this research. None of this research would have beenpos.sihle without the help of the friendly, skilled, and knowledgeable historians at the MaritimeMuseum Library. and I ani grateftil for their unfailing support. I also thank Dr. Philip Dreyfuis forrestraining my more speculative comments and offering suggestions for future research. Any errorsin. or shortcomings of, this essay are entirely my own.

A Short History of the Union Iron Works

In 1849, James Donahtie, an Irishman whose family had traveled to New Jersey by way ofGlasgow, abandoned his gold tush gold mining attempts and settled in San Francisco. Using theskills he had learned in New Jerse . he founded a primitive blacksmith shop. Within a few monthshis brother Peter. another experienced iron worker, joined him. The brothers rapidly built theirblacksmith shop into a full fledged iron works, the first such on the West Coast. 13y i86o, theDonahue’s Union Iron Works produced stoves, mining equipment. propeller shafts, boilers, steamengines, locomotives, and custom iron orders of all descriptions, and carried on a thriving side

Ex POST fAcTo

Research Report2o7

business in ship repair. In 1863, tO provide Civil \Var defenses to the port of San Francisco, the Navysent the disassembled Monitor Qtnainche from the East Coast aboard the sailing vessel Aqizila. ‘lhcAqoila sank the day after arrival, with the Cznz1Inchc still in her hold. Within six months a salvagecrew raised the sunken ship, prompting Mark Twain to give a speech in honor of ? lajor Edward C.Perry, who lcd the salvage crew. The UIW launched the Garnancheon November 14,h, 1864. Thefirst ironclad warship on the West Coast, the C’arnanehe never saw’ action.’ James I)onahuc died ini86i, and in z86 Peter I)onahue sold his shares in the UIW to! Ii. Booth and OWT. Prescott,Irving Murray Scott, who had been the Superintendent of the UIW since 1863, was made a fullpartner by the new owners. lie managed the Works for the next forty years.

In the z88os. the navies of the world began to convert to steel hulled ships. Naval yardswith experience building locomotives were pardetilarly well stated for building the new ships. as theyhad the skilled men and equipment needed for both metalworking and shipbuilding. Since thePanama Canal had notyctopcncd, the Navy’s policy was to defend each coastwith ships htult onthat coast. On the \Vest Coast, the UIW was initially the only qualified yard, and so became theprimary Western builder ofwarships prior to World War t. By 1891, the Ul\V had constructed threearmored cruisers and a battleship. The most famous of these vessels was the cruiser Ohrnpia, whichwould serve as Commodore Dewey’s flagship at the battle ofManila Bay in z89$.

In 1902, the UIWwas sold to the United States Shipbuilding Company, which mergedwith Bethlehem Steel that same year. I lowever, the San Francisco subsidiary continued to beknown as the Union Iron \Vorks until after World War I. Today, tile old Union Iron \Vorks.located at 20th and Illinois streets, are owned by the Port of San Francisco.7IIisroHoraphv

Since this research topic is very tightly focused, it is not surprising that the sourcesavailable address the topic only as part of a larger study. ‘l’he best sotlrcc for this specific isstzc isLaborAdministration in the Shipbuilding Indtistry During War’Ilme: l.”by P. II. Douglas and F.E. Wolfe.8 Skirting the fine line between primary and secondary sources, this article can best beviewed as a scholarly post-mortem examination of the issue of shipyard labor in the preceding threeyears. The article explains the tirgent need for shipbtulding created by German U-i3oat attacks,discusses the prewar shiphuulding industry, including the labor situation; and explains thegovernmental action taken to address the situation. The article qtueklv transitions to its primartfocus, a detailed study of the actions of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjtistrnent I3oard.

The Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board was established on August 20, m9z7byAssistant Secretary of the Navy, Franklin 1). Roosevelt. Members of the board included thepresidents of tile najor shipyard workers’ unions and representatives of two U.S. Governmentagencies: the United States Shipping Board (USSB), founded in the autumn of 1916 to regulate

Richard II. Dillon, Iron ]lien: Peter, James and Michael Donahzze(Fairfleld, CA.: JamesStevenson Publisher, 1984; reprint, 2004), 78-88.‘Edgar M. i3ranch, “Major Perry and the Monitor Camanche: An Early 1\ lark Tw’ain Speech,”Anierican Liteozrnre39, no. a (May, 1967): 170-73.Joseph Aaron Bltim, “San Francisco Iron: The Indtistry and Its Workers from the Gold Rtzsh tothe i’urn of the Century” (San Francisco State University, 1989), n6-m8.William D. Walters Jr,,”Aneriean Naval Shipbuilding, 1890-1989,” GeographicalRelieu’9o, no.3(Jul., 2000): 419-20.

Bltzm, “San Francisco Iron”, 183.Robert I lessen, “The ‘I’ransforrnation of i3ethlehcm Steel, 1904-1909,” The Business Ilisroii’Rezww46, no.3 (Atitumn, 1972): 345-46.7 When I3luzrn wrote “San l’raneisco Iron the UIWwas owned by Sotzthw’est Marine.P.11. Dotiglas and FE. Wolfe, “Labor Administration in the Shipbtiilding Industry DuringWarTime: I,” The Journal of Political Eeononw27, no. 3 (Mar., 1919).

Ex POST FACTO

208 Keith Terry

shipping and the USSB’s Emergency Fleet Corporation, created in April of 1917 to administer acrash building program. The article dissects in detail the agreements brokered by the board in eachregion. These agreements covered hours worked, wages, working conditions, and tinion powers.

The second most valuable resource is San Francisco Irnn, Joseph Blum’s 1989 M.A.Thesis.’ As a former iron worker, Bltim brings a unique perspective on the nature ofwork in the ironindustry. Mthotigh the thesis does not cover the time period being researched, it does provide acontextual setting for the Union Iron Works itself. Blurn focuses primarily on the nature of thechanging relationship between workers and management at the Union Iron Works, placing thoserelations in a larger labor history context. Especially relevant to the topic at hand is the demographicinformation provided by l3lum on the workers involved in the strike of 188i.

Finally. lion Men, by Richard 11. Dillon.’0 chronicles the colorful lives of the Donahuebrothers: Peter, James, and Michael. Benveen them, the brothers not only proved that heavyindustry could thrive in resource-poor California, but they also provided gas lighting to the city ofSan Francisco, founding the company that would become Pacific Gas and Electric. Peter was a keyfigure in early railroading and shipping thmughotit northern California, and by the time of his deathhe had become a wealthy and famous industrialist. The book does not reflect directly on the researchtopic, but it does help to place the Union Iron Works in context. Various other monographs wererelated to the topic indirectly, the most relevant ofwhich may be found in the bibliography. Theconstraints of time prevented a thorough search for other sources, and the list should by no means beconsidered comprehensive.

An Overview of the Workers

General Demographic Overview:The men’ who worked at the Union Iron Works between 1908 and 191$ were, on

average, thirty-one years old, with the average age fluctuating between tw’enty-seven and thirty-threein any given year. as shown in table i, below. Of those men for whom we have both the position(s)held and an understanding of those positions,’ roughly one-third held skilled positions, while theremaining two-thirds were unskilled or semi-skilled, as shown in table a, belotv. Based on those menfor whom we have nationality information, a sizable minority (40.8%) were foreign-born, as shown intable 3. below. After America, the most-represented nations were Italy, Ireland, Russia, Scotland,and Greece, as shown in table 4, below.

Blum. ‘San Francisco Iron”.I)illon, hon ?Ie,i: Pete,; James and jllichael Donahue.J’wo of the sampled workers appear to have female names, but further investigation is required.ilie suspected women are: Lois Larson, who worked as a carpenter’s helper from Jttly 1916 to Feb.191$, with a given address ofo rio” st.. Oakland, and Fay White, who worked as a rivet and drillhelper in Dee. 1917, with a given address of 133$ hudson Ave., SF.I am indebted to Ted Miles, Assistant Curator at the San Francisco Maritime National I JistoricPark, National Park Service, San Francisco, for the skill levels assigned to each of the position titles.It is important to remember that the datasct provided no information at all on the highly skilledworkers who in union terms were known as “Masters.” Therefore, when this paper refers to skilledw’orkers. the reference is to ftilly trained journeymen or their equivalent. Douglas and Wolfe use theterms journeyman and “mechanic” interchangeably, applying these terms to the highest skill level ofworker addressed by the Shipbtulding Labor Adjustment Board. They make no mention of Masters.Other sotirces mention that the SI.A13 created job classification tables, which might be very useful inthis regard. Unfortunately, I have been tinable to locate these tables as of this tvriting.

Ex POST FACTO

Research Report2c9

Table i: Average Age

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. l)cviation

Agcl9o8 15 14 45 27.40 8.399Agc,9o9 26 i$ 58 32.04 10.577

AgC1910 22 17 59 32.14 10.557

AgCI9II 34 17 6o 29.50 9.304

Agc9ia 35 17 6i 32.34 10.735

Agcr9i3 43 17 53 32.70 8.169

AgcI9;4 50 i8 63 32.22 9.141

Agci9i5 57 17 64 33.09 9.288

Age1916 i i6 56 30.00 8.826

Agc1917 169 12 57 29.87 9.564

Agcr9;8 41 20 50 32.73 8.597

Table : Worker Skill Level

Frcqticncy Percent Valid Percent

Valid a Skilled 133 29.1 32.5

(Journeyman level)

3 Unskilled or Semi- 276 6o4 67.5SkilledTotal 409 $9.5 100.0

Missing 4 Unknown or Multiple 40 8.8Skill Levels

System $ i.8

Total 48 10.5

Total 457 100.0

Ix POST FACTO

210 Keith Terry

Table : Summary of Nationality

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid i American 202 44.2 59.2 59.2

2 loreign t39 30.4 40.8 Ioo.o

Total 341 74.6 100.0

Missing 9 Unknown n6 25.4

Total 457 100.0

Table : Detailed Nativity

Frequency Percent ValidPercent

Valid California ,a6 27.6 37.0 37.0

6, Italy 31 6.8 9.1 46.0

55 Ireland i8 3.9 5.3 51.3

53 RUssia 12 2.6 3.5 54.8

6o Scotland ti 2.4 3.2 8.i

13 Illinois 10 2.2 2.9 6,.o

52 Greece 9 2.0 2.6 63.6

3$ Pennsylvania 8 i.8 2.3 66.o

66 Germany 8 i.8 2.3 68.3

i6 Kansas 7 1.5 2.1 70.4

32 New York 7 1.5 2.1 72.4

51 England 7 1.5 2.1 74.563 Sweden 7 1.5 2.1 76.5

49 Wisconsin 5 1.1 1.5 78.0

57 Spain 5 II 1.5 79.567 1 lonolulu 5 1.1 1.5 80.9

25 Missouri 4 .9 1.2 $2.,

43 ‘lexas 4 .9 1.2 83.3

75 Norway 4 .9 1.2 84.522 Michigan 3 .7 .9 85.3

35 Ohio 3 .7 .9 $6.2

CunuilativePercent

EX POST fActo

Ix POST FACTO

Research Report 21[

56 Itancc 3 .7 .9 87.1

8 Mexico 3 .7 .9 88.o

69 Austria 3 .7 .9 88.9

76 Canada 3 .7 .9 89.7

‘5 Iowa 2 .4 .6 90.3

23 Minnesota 2 .4 .6 90.9

26 Montana 2 .4 .6 9j.5

6z finland 2 .4 .6 92.1

64 Poland 2 .4 .6 92.7

68 Switzerland a .4 .6 93.3

71 Scria 2 .4 .6 93.8

Isle OfNIan 2 .4 .6-

94.4

$o United States a..

.6 95.0

Connccdetir I .2 .3 95.3

9 florida I .2 .3 95.6

Indiana i .2 .3 95.9

21 Massachusetts .2 .3 96.2

27 Nebraska i .2 .3 96.5

a8 Nevada i .Z .3 96.8

29 New I .2 .3 97.1

I Iampshire31 New Mexico .2 .3 97.4

37 Oregon t .2 .3 97.7

40 South Carolina i .2 .3 97.9

Utah I .2 .3 98.2

6 Belgium i .Z .3 98.5

72 Nova Seoda I .2 .3 98.8

73 Hungary .2 .3 99.1

74 Australia 1 .2 .3 99.4

78 Denmark 1 .2 .3 99.7

79 PuertO Rico .z .3 100.0

Total 34’ 74.6 100.0

rvlissing System ii6 25.4

Total 457 100.0

212 Keith Terry

Wage Overview:The earliest year for which we have statistically significant wage data is 1908. and the

latest date for which we have wage data is June of 1918. \Vages were largely static from 1908 to 1916,but began to increase sharply in 1917 for both journeymen and laborers, as can be seen in figure i,below. The average wage for jotlrneyrnen for the period 1908 to 1918 was $0.56 cents an hour. Duringthe s’ar years. the averagejourneyman earned $0.64 cents an hour, while the average wage was$0.46 cents an hour before the war. The average wage for laborers for the period 1908 to 1918 wasS0.35 cencs an hour. Dtiring the war years, the laborer earned $0.40 cents an hotir, while the averagewage WU5 $0.27 cents an hour before the war. To illtistrate the severity of post-1916 wage inflation,note that the average Journeyman earned $0.48 an hour in 1916. iltit fl 1918. the average laborerearned $o. an hour, six edits more than the journeyman had earned only ovo years earlier.

Figure I: Average Wage By Year

0.8

/ Avgerage Wage

Workers0,8

-. Avemge Wage

1905 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1915 1917 1918

Year

EX POST FACTO

Research Report 213

Table 5: Summary Wage Data

Skill Level of Içlo$ to 191$ 7ar Years Pre-War Yeats\Vorkcr Average Rate Average Rate Average Rate) 1908-

(1917-1918) 1916)

2 Skilled Mean .5628973 .6418761 .4590616

(Jotirneyman

level)N 132 $8 74

Minimum .28100 .42500 .28100

Maxirntim .83167 .83167 .62500

Std. .i27$8353 09945285 .06635739I)eviation

Unskilled or Mean .3504774 .4015604 .2698474Semi-Skilled

N 276 183 132

Minimum .10415 .10940 .08330

Maximum .72500 .72500 .40600

Std. .Io6349 .10291261 .05194650

DeviationTotal Mean .4192015 .4795965 .3378176

N 408 271 206

Minimum .10415 .10940 .08330

Maximum .83167 .83167 .6zoo

Std. .15101170 .15177863 .10758042

Deviation

Employment Length Overview:Employment length calculations are difficult due to the vagaries of the data. Periods of

employment frequently show a start date hut no end date. During the war years, rates changed sorapidly that rate records with neither start nor end dates arc common. In some eases, oneemployment period ends and another begins the next day, simply because the employee received apay raise. Accordingly, no attempts were made to estimate the number of days worked per year.I lowever, based solely on those employment periods for which we have both start and end dates, anaverage employment period was calculated. When studying this data, one shotild bear in mind that

EX POST FACTO

214 Keith Terry

many employees, especially unskilled ones, worked for only one period, while others worked dozensof periods spanning many years ofcmplovment. On average, skilled workers could expect to work for6 days per employment period. while unskilled workers could expect a period ofl days, as shown intable 6, below.

Table 6: Employment Length

Skill LevelofWorker Mean N Minimum Maximum Std. Deviation2 Skilled (Journeyman level) 55.67 74 I ó6 86.096

3 Unskilled orsemi-skilled 50.82 131 3 284 58.957

Total 51.57 20 1 566 69.807

Analysis

Nationality and Race:Nationality did not affect pay scales in an’ statistically significant manner, as shown in

table. below. Similarly, no significant relationship was found between nationality and skill level of

employment, as shown in table 8. below.A review of the nationalities in table 4, above, shows that theworkforce in the 1910S was

exeltisively of North American or European extraction, and no Asian surnames were fotind in thesample. Since racial information was not recorded on the cards, nativity and surnames are the onlyindicators available. According to Bltim, Chinese workers constituted 25% of the Californiaworkforcc in 1870, but collusion between employers and workers ensured that Chinese workers wereexcltided even from “unskilled ohs in the higher-paving industries’3 stich as the iron trades. Based onthe complete absence ofpositive indicators of a Chinese workforee. it is safe to conclude that theworkers in the shipyards continued their historic practices of exclusion and racial definition.

Ibid., 213.

EX POST fAcTo

Research Report 215

Table : Nationality and Wages

Nationality Skill I.evel of 1908 tO 1918 War Years Pre-War YearsWorker Average Average Rate Average

Ratc (1917-1918) Ratc(i9o8-i9i6)

t 2 Skilled Mean .5977609 .6352735 .4686667American (Journeyman

level)N 59 49 21

3 Unskilled or Mean .3751950 .4026279 .2613720

semi—skilled N 123 103 36

Total Mean .4473455 .4776255 .3377437

N i8 152 57

2 Foreign 2 Skilled Mean .6104203 .682o6 .4645372

(Journeymanlevel)

N 30 23 13

Unskilled or Mean .3643708 .3971208 .2880427

semi-skilled N 92 67 39

Total Mean .4a8748 .4699410 .3321664

N 122 90 52

Total 2. Skilled Mean .6020281 .6502222 .4670878(Journeymanlevel)

N 89 72 34

3 Unskilled or Mean .3705633 .4004575 .2752408

semi-skilled 215 170 75

Total Mean .4383276 .4747676 .3350830

N 304 242 109

Ex POST FACTO

216 Keith Terry

Table 8: Nationality and Skill Level

Nationality Total

1 2 IAmerican foreign American

Skill Level of 2 Skilled Count 59 30 89Worker Journeyman level)

Expected 53.3 35.7 89.0Count% within 32.4% z.6% 29.3%Nationality

3 Unskilled or semi- Count 123 92 215

skilledExpected 128.7 86.3 215.0Count% within 67.6% 75.4% 70.7%Nationality

Total Count i8z 122 304

Expected i8a.o 122.0 304.0Count% within ioo.o% ioo.o% ioo.o%Nationality

One can also infer that there were few, if any. black iron workers in San Francisco fromthe absence of any infonnation regarding them, either in the source data or the secondary literature.In Thabor Administration in the Shipbuilding Industry DuringWartime: l. Douglas and Wolfeexplicitly mention black iron workers in the Southeast. use Shipbuilding Labor Adlustrnent Boardaward (rtiling) of Fcbnian’ 14. 1918 for the South Atlantic and Gulfyards specified “two grades oflaborers, one at 40 cents per hour. and ‘common’ labor at 30 cents (the second being provided fornegro labor. )“4 Either there were so few black workers in San Francisco that there \s’as no need for aruling, or pre-existing union arrangements handled the issue.

Wages:The issue ofwages is comples. When researching historical shipyard wages. one generally

finds references to daily rather than hourly wages.’5 Since the eight hour workday was far fromstandard in the early twentieth century. questions arise as to the length of the workday whenattempting to compare the hotirly rates recorded on the index cards for comparison. I Iappilv. thedetailed analysis of Douglas and Wolfe incltides several references to the length of the workday, andin even’ ease, the workday is considered to be eight hours long. The issue was clearly complex.

Wolfe. “Labor Administration in the Shiphtiilding Industry DuringWar Time: 1.” 158.‘ The UIW index cards themselves can be quite confusing regarding rates. Sometimes a decimal isincluded, and sometimes it is not. I lowever, after analyzing the entire sample, cross-referencing theinfomsation with Douglas and Wtilfc, and referencing several non-sample cards that had specialnotes attached to them. I determined that the standard card has an hourly, rather than a daily, payrate recorded on it.

Ix POST FACTo

Research Report

because Douglas and Wolfe thcmsclvcs include both hourly and daily rates in their discussions.6Another issue in interpreting the research data is the complexity and frequency of the rulings of theShipbuilding Labor Adjustment l3oard itselL Rulings were sometimes contested, after whichadjustments would be made. Further complications arose because of the varying levels of labororganization at shipyards across the nation.

San Francisco and Seattle were closed shops,” reflecting the higher level of labororganization in Western shipyards,7 and Western wages were generally higher than those in theMidwestorAtlantic states. Immediatelyafter irs.Atigust 20 formation, the SLAB had to deal with aSeptember, 1917 Pacific coast general strike. According to the SLAB. the workers had ample reasonto strike, as “the cost of living had increased 31 per cent since Jtine 1, 1916,butwagcs in the shipyardshad not been appreciably increased since [June i. 1916)._6 One unnamed Seattle “steel-ship yard,”however, had signed an agreement in Attgtist to pay journeymen $0.78 an hour, ($6.25 per day), whileother yards were still paying $0.50 an hour ($4.00 per day). In November, the SlAB ruled that thestandard pay for most “mechanics” (journeymen) would be “$5.25 for an 8.hour day, or 65 cents anhour.’9 This rate increase was insufficient, especially for the Seattle workers, but the l3oard hadturned its attention to labor disputes that erupted in the East. In December, the Emergency FleetCorporation then granted a war service premium of io percent” to any Pacific Coast worker whoworked “ft)rn-cight hours in anysix consccutwe days.” After February i, 1918, this ten percentincrease became permanently effective for all workers, regardless of hours worked. The standard ratefor the Pacific Coast in February, 1918, then, was $5773 a day, or $07218 per hotir,’°

Table a: A Journeyma&s Wage Increases. 1917-1018

NameJones, I I.E. EmpDate2: 2/5/1917 Rate2: 0.438

EmpDate3: 9/29/1917 Rare3: 0.525EmpDate4: 12/12/1917 Rate4: 0.563EmpDate5: 2/1/1918 Rate;: 0.613EmpDate6: 2/11/1918 Rate6: 0.723

Comparing this information to the research data, we find good correlation. A good example is I I.E.Jones, a journeyman in the machine shop, as shown in table 9, above. Note especially the ten per centincrease on February i, 1918. ihis is followed qtiickly by an increase to $0723, bringing him in linew’ith the standard rate of $07218 documented by Douglas and Wolfe. The complexity and speed ofrate changes in this period is clearly reflected in the primary source index cards. Rate data foremployment periods in late 1917 and 1918 are frcqtiently written in a harried hand and/or undated.

6 Wolfe, “Labor Administration in the Shiphtulding Industry DtiringWarTime: I,” i6-8, 64. Theissue is muddied on page 64, when the authors state that the basic 8-hour day is not an 8-hour dayatall. but primarily a wage measurc.”This statement is made in contextwith a discussion of the basicu-hour week, which includes a halfworkday on Saturday. I lowever, the specific Labor Boardruling the authors refer to. on page i8, states clearly that”ovcrtime in excess of$ hotirs a day was tohe paid for at one and a half times the straight hourly wage.”‘7 William J. Breen, “Administrative Polities and Labor Policy in the First World War: The U.S.Employment Service and the Seattle Labor Market Emperiment,” The Business IIisro,yReiieii’6i,nc) 4 (Winter, 1987): 586-87.Wolfe, “LaborAdministration in the Shipbuulding Industry During WarTime: 1,” 156.‘ Ibid.: 156-57.Ibid.: 157.

Ex POST FACTO

218 Keith Terry

Those which are dated often show rate changes on a weekly or semi-weekly basis in January andFebruary of 191$. as exemplified by Mr. Jones. Rate data on the cards ends on June 5. 1918. Why thecards ceased to be used is unknown. Possibilities include the system becoming too unw’ieldy in theface of rapid change, or rate standardization by position dtte to contincting actions of the SLAB.

Employment Length, Worker Age, and Labor Division:Despite the already mentioned difficulty in interpreting employment length data, some

general observations can be made. Joseph l3lum noted that iron working has “never been an easytrade in which to earn a steady and sectire livelihood ... only a small percentage of the men couldever cocmt on a full year’s w’ages.” More specifically, l3lum analyzed the 1875-1876 diary of laborleader Frank Roncy. and found that “Roney held six different positions lasting from three days tothree months, but he wa.s never offered a steady, permanentjob and his total working time duringthe period was only abottt seven months.”’ Blum quotes another iron worker, who said in the midi88os that “the average mechanic in this city is not employed more than ten months in a year.”0 Asstated earlier, the UI\V cards reveal that skilled workers could expect to work for 6 days peremployment period. While further analysis of the employee length data is required to draw specificconclusions regarding the 1908-1918 period, initial observations indicate that the employmentinstability reported by Ultim is typical of this later period as well.

The average age ofworkers varied, btit not in any statistically significant manner. For theentire period 1908-1918. the average age of all workers was thirty-one. For skilled workers, theaverage age w’as thirty-five, and unskilled workers were on average nventy-eight years old. As can beseen in figure a. below, worker age tended to fluctuate around these means. No significant changeoccurred during the war ears, despite the labor shortage. ‘l’his eon probably be explained by the factthat shipyard workers were exempted from military service and national campaigns were conductedto recruit new’ workers, due to the critical need for wartime ship production. The growth ofshipyards and shipyard employment was astonishing. On October i. 1917. there were some 90.000shipyard workers nationwide. By October ist, 1918. that number had grown to 375.000 shipyard

explosive growth in shipyard employment may also be a contribtiting factor in theabandonment by the Union Iron Works of the note card system of recording wages, as discussedabove.

Blum, “San Francisco Iron”. vi.Ibid.. 140.

0 Ibid.. 165.Wolfe, ‘Labor Administration in the Shipbuilding Industry Dtiring War Time: I,” 171.Ibid.: 147. See also Brcen. ‘Atiministrative Politics and Labor Policy in the First VorId ‘War: flc

U.S. Employment Service and the Seattle Labor Market Experiment,” 583.

EX POST FACTO

Research Report 219

Figure : Average Age ofWorkers By Year

‘(I1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1919

Year

The final topic for analysis regards the ratio of skilled to ttnskillcd workers in theshipyards. One of the major battlegrounds between iron indtistry workers and employers in thenineteenth century was the ratio of skilled to unskilled workers. According to Biunl, laborers nladcup abotit twenty per cent of tIle iron trades w’orkfiwec in San Francisco in the i88os. l3ased on thedata found in the cards, the unions lost this battle. Dtiring l908-1918, unskilled laborers were themajority, forming 67.5% of tile workforee. One should note, however, that tilese statistics shotiid bewew’ed with caution. As Douglas and Wolfe noted, tile silipyards ilad a 230% labor turnover:7 Ifonepostulates that tills nirnovcrw’as larger among tinskilied than skilled workers, tilcn the 67.5% figuregiven above beconles unreliable. Furtiler analysis is required to determine if the figures need to headjusted to account for worker turnover.conclusion

TIle information gathered tilrough tile sampling and analysis of tile Union Iron Worksforeman’s index cards 6r tile period of 1908-1918 provides no new revelations. Existing nineteenthcentury patterns discussed by Joseph Bluirn in San Francisco hon regarding employment instabilityand Chinese exclusion continued into tile first decades of tile nventicrll century. iThe unity created byusing tile Chinese as a foil also) explains tile lack of any dithirentiation between American and forcign(European) workers in sl’ages and in access to skilled positions. Ihe wage structure created by tileShipbuilding Labor Adjustnlent l3oard, and analyzed by Douglas and Wolfe in “LaborAciministtation 0 tile Shipbtiilding Industry DtiringWar lime, I,” erosseileeks nicely vitll tile l’agedata found on tile cards. No significant fluctuations were totlild ill worker age during tile years

‘° Blum, ‘San Francisco Iron, 169.‘7 Wolfe, ‘LaborAdministration fl tile Silipbtlilding Industry DuringWarTime: 1,” 149.

Ex POST FACTO

220 Keith Terry

examined. Mthough one might expect that worker age would rise significantly during the war years,this stability is explained by Douglas and Wolfe, who point out that shipyard workers wereconsidered critical, and were accordingly exempted from military service. Analysis of the foreman’sindex cards, then, confirmed existing scholarship while providing another source to be used in futureanalyses.

Ex POST FACTO

CC)VC,,V

4-0I‘0UEU,UE

U‘0IciVECd,VE

CFrJjC

222 Keith Terry

Image : Card Storage Box

Image : Cart Loaded With Boxes

EX POST FACTO