Labor and Lumber: A look at Clinton's Sawmill Labor History

Lumber Labor History:

            Worker’s rights were a very important issue facing both millowners and mill workers in the late half of the 19^th century. The main bargaining points were pay, hours, and safety.  The word safety encompassed many issues but locally the recorded histories focus on one salient issue, compensating hurt workers. In Clinton, the added stress was that the mills employed 2/3rds of the population. With such a reliance on one industry, Clinton at a moment’s notice could become like many lumber towns and one industry towns around America, a ghost town.  

A brief overview of the Clinton lumber labor conditions:  In Clinton, there are three mentioned mill strikes: June 1, 1865, 1877, and July 1890.  Looking at the payouts for worker’s compensation and the local papers, injuries were a constant presence. Pay was also a constant point of contention. Most workers made between $1-50-$3 a day. Most of the lower end jobs would make around $1.50 a day while the more technical ones would be $2.25-$3.00. Some of the more skilled workers made $4 a day.

Even with working conditions and pay as they were, Young’s personal business papers are filled with requests for work. Another push for constant inquires was the large turnover in the sawmill industry. The highest rate of returning workers to Young’s mills from year to year was often 2/3rds. In other words, every year, a third of the workforce didn’t return the next year. Young seemed to advertise throughout the Northwoods and east looking for workers.

            A simplistic view of the “typical” lumber industry related worker comes from Wisconsin/Minnesota. While not proven to be pertinent to Iowa and Clinton, the work was seasonal. Logging happened in winter and was located in Wisconsin/Minnesota. The log drives and rafting was early spring. The sawing season was spring and summer. Harvest would be “fall.” Quite a few oral histories show that as new settlers were trying to establish their farms or young men looking for an adventure before settling down, would follow the seasonal changes of the workforce. Meaning, some would work in the forests, on the river, and in the mills all around their farms. This was made much easier in the Northwoods.

            How did the owners respond?

            Two main reasons underscore the response from millowners to their workers: 1. To keep the workforce local so there was a “full crew of qualified men.”2. To avoid the swelling calls for intervention and regulation.  So when looking at how the industry responded locally,  don’t feel the owners were being nice. At best, benevolent or paternalistic.

            Often times, the owner would support endeavors taken by the workers, independently of the company. For example, in 1871, Young’s workers created their own accident insurance. In 1895, Lamb’s mill workers organized a similar endeavor, called, “mutual accident insurance company.” In essence, these workers formed their own insurance protection, as the one offered by insurance companies was too expensive.     

            Unique for the time and industry, Young stuck to a 6:30am to 5:30pm with an hour lunch time schedule for his workers. Meaning, Young was an ardent supporter of the 10 hour work day, even when his competitors were still employing 11-12 hour days. Young also allowed extra pay for days that went over 10 hours and advanced pay. When depressions hit the industry, Young still found ways to keep his workers employed.

            As mentioned in many Clinton publications, one key aspect the lumber barons focused on to smooth worker relations was investing in local quality of life. While the term “quality of life” was not used, the lumber barons invested in fire, hospitals, town entertainment, transportation,  and so much more. 

            In the context of the Progressive era, the only lumber related firm that truly pushed the boundaries of worker and employer relations was the Curtis Company. Why? All the lumber mills were closed by the early 1900’s. The Curtis in 1913 established a pension system. They  opened an employees’ club house in 1915 (by the way converting one of Lamb’s old mills), and in 1920, created a bonus system.  By the 1950’s, the Curtis Company looked like a company that many harken back to the good ol’ days.

           

            How controlling were the owners:

            Town lore would say Young would fire any worker who was caught having a drink. It seems the real story came from the fact that in 1882, Clinton citizens voted for an amendment to prohibit alcohol. Rumors swirled that Young closed the mill on election day but still paid the workers, to entice them to work. Even further, some claimed Young’s political allies watched the polls to make sure his workers were voting for prohibition. If they voted against it, they were fired. Claims in 1884 were that Young made sure his workers knew that they were expected to vote Republican. All in all, it was company policy to not employ drinkers. Young would claim his temperance was for safety.

            To keep wages constant so there wasn’t migration from mill to mill and to help control striking, the mill owners discussed wages together. The goal was to have a set wage based off a ten hour day.

            Many of the lumber barons became mayors of the town and they invested in and owned many of the other industries. One of the museum’s research questions moving forward is how much of a “company” town was Clinton? While it’s clear it wasn’t your typical company town were workers bought from the company store, it would be interesting to see how much of a worker’s wages went back to  companies and landowners that were connected to the lumber owners. For example, the papers, the banks, the gas company, the street car, etc… were all owned in part by lumber owners. 

Updates to come as more information is discovered.