free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

rhirsch · Joined: 16 Nov 2009 Posts: 35

Please post (not in character, just as yourself) possible solutions to the Pullman crisis. Consider and explain why your solution is a good one, or at least, who it's good for and how it benefits them (and, consequently, who loses and what they lose). Respond to each other's solutions and explore them...

Free Forum

TheHappiestSnowman · Joined: 10 May 2010 Posts: 9

what I see as the problem here is the stubborn attitude of Mr. Pullman. I understand that his focus is not on the workers who he looks at as expendable, but solely on keeping his company afloat in the depression (and maintaining loads of money for his own luxurious lifestyle). Going over the reading i find that the demands of the workers do not seem that harsh on his financial situation. I think it would be a wise move for Mr. Pullman to at least decrease the housing costs in the town of Pullman. that way even if the workers were still making drastically less money than they had previously earned just months earlier, they would at least be able to pay enough just to live, and thus be somewhat more content. Also wasn't the town of Pullman just another extra moneymaker for Mr. Pullman that wasn't necessary to the company? I thought that at the time many other factories did not have towns around them and they still turned a good profit. I think Mr. Pullman should have looked for other options to keep the company turning a substantial profit besides the paychecks of his employees. Honestly the strike seems to have hurt him more than if he had allowed the workers cheaper or even free living. For one, none of the trains were running due to the strike of the railway workers who as part of the ARU were striking along with Pullmans group. It is true that Mr.pullman was having a hard time turning profit from his sleeper cars because the depression meant that less businessmen were traveling in luxury, but with no trains moving he could not even draw a slight profit out of this. Also with every single one of his workers on strike, the factory too was not turning a profit. and finally with many workers in debt, and unable to pay the high housing fees, the town was not turning a great profit either. I think that a lowering of the housing costs either to very low or even no money would have given the strikers what they wanted and opened up the other sources of revenue (railways and Factory) for profit once again. this in my eyes would have been a great solution to the pullman crisis which i think would have ended in a decently content workforce and an easier (non military) ending to the problem.
_________________
If you give a man a cupcake he will have dessert for one day

If you give a man a million cupcakes he will have dessert for the rest of the month until the sad day when all the other cupcakes go stale

lstrickman · Joined: 06 May 2010 Posts: 20

I also think that the violence of the strike might have been avoidable if Pullman had either raised wages for the workers, or lowered their rent. While it is understandable that he would want to keep more money because of the depression, the point that he didn't really need all the money from rent etc. is a valid one. His refusal to compromise or negotiate created the issue of whether or not the government should help to stop the strike, and turned it into a nationwide problem. I think that if Pullman had made these changes and been willing to negotiate with the workers, he could have prevented the strike from becoming a national issue and debate.

zatkinsweltman · Joined: 09 May 2010 Posts: 27

I also think that the major problem was that people were being paid less and the housing costs stayed the same. This put all the people in Pullman in debt, so obviously they had to riot in order to stay alive. I realize that Mr. Pullman had to make some cuts in wages because of the economic downfall, but I think the way to handle this would have been to lower the rent prices as well so the people of the town would be able toi pay according to their salary. Another problem that the railroad people caused was they shut down all the railroads. This meant nobody would make any money, nobody could travel for business, thereby affecting all people, and nobody could get mail, thereby again affecting all people. Some trains had to be run. If the Pullman cars wanted to stay off so they could find a peaceful resolution then so be it, but it is not fair that everyone in America had to suffer an economic downfall due to these strikes. So some of the trains shoould have been running, and the people running them, as there would probably be few, would get paid enough because there would be less workers. The basic poroblem that this caused was it put everyone into a depression so although the strikers deserve their 8 hour days and fair pay, America needed the Railroads. So the compromise that I just said needed to happen for the good of all Americans. Violence was not the Answer. People should have tried to make a solution, and if these didn't work they might have had to resort to violence, bUt I feel they should have tried first.

BChangy · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 33

To elaborate on the solution of Pullman decreasing the rent of his company town I think that he should make it an open town for anyone to reside in. In this soulution I propose that any employee who wishes to continue living in the town do so and others whom wish to live else where are free to. I have choosen to make this proposal based on my knowledge of company towns such as Pullmans. In a company town a worker must live in the designated town even if it cost less to live else where, which in his case was Pullman. This would benifit workers making it cheaper to live and placetheir money elsewhere.
In such a solution of an open town, people who don't work for Pullman are free to live there also. An open town would entail that people would be living off of different incomes and be less hostile to Pullman. It's just about a win win situation

malexander · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 20

I think the major issues in the Pullman Strike were that Pullman was unwilling to negotiate and also refused to lower the cost of living in his town. I think one possible solution to this conflict would've been if he had agreed to compromise with the workers, and to pay them more when the economy was booming, when he could afford higher wages for all his workers. This way, when business was slow, or there was another depression, he could go back to normal wages, and the workers would have saved some money. That's all sort of ridiculous.
Also, even if Pullman was losing money, he should've agreed to lower the cost of living in his town during the hard times, just to solely prevent strikes from happening. Also, by wasting time refusing to negotiate he was causing the entire RR in many parts of the country to be stopped by the ARU. Not only was he inconveniencing himself, but also the people who relied on the RR.

Jaehyouk · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 22

I think just wipe the crowd of people using the force of militia is the best solution. During that time as the reading says America was in a terriable economy depression, and because of it 1 out of 5 people in the U.S didn't have a job. So striking for reducing some salary (Pullman's company was in a bad shape because of depression) just seems none sence to me. And since all the railroad workers were on strike all the railroad business including trains (there were no air plane and not many of people had cars, so therefore train was the only transportation) have stopped. Doesn't people have to be one? especially when the economy of home country hits the worst depression? So, my points is just stop the strike (no matter which way) and hire new workers that don't have complains.

mswartz · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 43

Personally I feel that one of the main problems of the union was that,
" there was almost always someone else willing to take the job for even less pay." (page 70) Many of these people were immigrants and I feel that if the union could somehow stop immigrants from taking these jobs that would have been beneficial. If there was no one else to do their job and getting workers from the east coast was difficult, it would have potentially forced the railroad officials to compromise in some way or another.

Pullman was being rather selfish in earning a large profit and in my opinion could have afforded to be a little more generous than he was. He didn't need to overpay his workers to the point of a large debt to his company, but just enough to make the workers happy. Pullman may loose a little bit of money but in the long run it's a strategic move. The union would stop bothering Pullman. It's a small price to pay considering there's no telling how much power the union could gain/ what they would do. It would also benefit the workers by giving them higher pay.

Kandice · Joined: 12 May 2010 Posts: 14

I agree with Tilly in stating that the best possible solution would've been a compromise between Mr.Pullman and his workers. However, I disagree with her stating that Mr, Pullman should've waited until the depression was over before his workers could gain a wage increase. As stated in many readings, just because the economy took a downturn, it didn't mean that the cost of living took a downturn, especially living as a resident on Pullman's land. In my compromise, I would propose that there would be a standard wage for all employees, no matter what the cost of living was, and a standard amount due for rent based on the cost of living in each specific town every year. This would allow all workers to contribute an equal amount whenever the economy fluctuated. In return, Pullman would have the assurance of a set payment from all of his workers thus enabiling the company to run securely.

hkwon · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 24

I am hurrying George Pullman to decrease rents as well as to raise wages for his employees as a reconciliation. I believe this is the only one way Pullman to go through the crisis. His car company is placed in the middle of crisis. In addition, workers firmly made their minds and organized ARU. I believe my suggest would add more deficits to deficits for the Pullman company in the short run, but bring the company a lot of money after passing by crisis in the long run. Above all, getting the railroad work is needed as a priority. For example, foods which are supposed to be delivered are being corrupt. Travellers are stuck. By this company, whole society could experience diseconomics.

Hey_look_its_EVAN · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 20

To Play the devils advocate ( not saying i think this, just to add some mental diversity to this thread) But can the workers tell George what to do. it was their decision to work for him and live in his town. if they are un happy then im sure they can leave.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

edalven · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 37

There's that stubborn individualism again. Seems like it pops up every time that we talk about problems in America. It's interesting that this Rugged Individualism is a very "American" trait, and throughout history, we've all liked it. People like Davey Crockett and George S. Patton (just to name the first things that came to my head) were adored by Americans. Europeans didn't like them too much. But anyway, this relates back to the theme of Intertwined Strengths and Weaknesses. Everyone who posted before me seems to agree that this entire conflict could have been prevented if Pullman had come to a compromise. He held all the cards, and was unwilling to save his enterprise in the long run by offering some basic assistance to his workers. Since a lot of people think this way, I'd be interested to see what happens when we debate. Will the Pullman group and its affiliates give in to reason, righteousness, and popular belief? I guess we'll see.

edalven · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 37

shawks · Joined: 12 May 2010 Posts: 12

I agree with other people have been saying. Pullman should have incrased wages and decreased rent. It was important for him to make some money, but he shouldn't have been so greedy by hogging all of his income to himself even during an economic depression.He should have at least let the workers work for less hours and also give them time to earn their extra money from other places if he couldnn't always afford to pay them himself. I don't know if that bring any relevance, but that's one of my ideas.
The workers shouldn't have reacted violently, though. It was hard to find work at this time, and little profit was better than none.

Annie C · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 20

I agree with what people said that the issue of Pullman strike was Pullman himself!!! Mad

The best solution would be Pullman had compromise with his workers. He did not even need to raise the wages but just remain the same, the works would be fine. I really want to know what were Pullman thinking about!!?

Free Forum