Reply #34: Nothing until 1880, then only a .1 fraction of labor force [View All]

[robdogbucky]

This was in 1863-1869, not 1880. But point well taken.

Table 1

Union Members per 100 Nonagricultural Workers, 1880-1985: Selected Countries
By 1900 that was at 7.5, by 1914, at 10.5.....

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/friedman.unions.us


Point is that nowhere in the historical record can I find anything that hints at the hiring of Chinese for the TCR was union busting.


I have seen ficionalized accounts of it being portrayed as slavery, you know "Shanghai-ed," but here in California it is more the tale from the descendents that settled here, it was as I pasted above. Same old same old. New group gets foothold, works to get rest of family over here, etc. The Irish did it that way as well. Come here work your ass off digging a canal or building a railroad and save enough to bring everyone over. Exploitation, yes, slavery, no, union-busting that early on, no. The only way ethnic groups could get a foothold here.

The historical society did a book on the stories from a cemetery in my home town. It's titled "Bishops to Bootleggers," and in it is the tracking of the timeline of the different waves of immigrants from Europe over the years, especially from 1860-1920.


I'm happy to be corrected.