Jump to navigation
George Edwin Waring, Jr. [ 361 ] drivers employed in the winter for snow removal walked off their jobs because of delays in receiving wages, Waring dismissed them. "Strikes will not be tolerated for one moment!' he stormed. "Every man who, for any reason, refuses to obey his orders promptly, completely and in good spirit, will be at once dismissed, and that will be the end of him so far as this department is concerned!'15 Waring, moreover, accused militant labor union leaders in the city of betraying the true interests of the workingman.16 Their interests could best be served, he thought, by his own system of labor management. Not one to speak idly, Waring introduced an elaborate arbitration scheme into the Department. A workers' committee of forty-one was established to settle minor disputes and deal with disciplinary problems. Five members of this comffRtee were joined by an equal number of Waring's staff, forming a board of conference which attended to matters that exceeded the jurisdiction of the workers' committee. If the board of conference could not agree, the issues went to Waring; but very few ever did, since the board handled most matters to the satisfaction of both parties. Initially skeptical, the workers' confidence in the machinery gradually developed when experience demonstrated the impartiality of its operations. Waring himself considered the experiment a milestone in labor relations.17 Whatever the benefits, however, they should not obscure the fact that Waring's scheme had been devised as a coun- termeasure against labor union activity and as a means of insulating the Department further from outside influences. As such, it mirrored the stern and generally paternalistic attitude of the New York City reformers toward labor. Recognizing the legitimacy of labor's grievances and upholding the workers' right to voice them, the reformers nevertheless resisted the aggressive spirit of labor. They would make concessions, but never under duress. ^Monthly Bulletin Issued by The City Club of New York, No. 3 (January 1896); Times, July 25,1895. 16Times, February 17 and 28, 1895. 17 Little reliable evidence exists on the success of this program. Many observers praised the system, but all based their evaluation on the Department's own account of its operation. The employees from time to time appeared satisfied by the arbitration apparatus; yet it was eliminated after Waring's departure. See ibid., April 12 and November 21, 1897, July 5 and October 7, 1896; Delos E Wilcox, The American City: A Problem in Democracy (New York: 1909), 224; "A Successful Labor Experiment" Gunton's Magazine, XIII (September 1897), i72-~8i; Fox, Report, 22.