March 19: The exclusion of disabled workers
Read:
1) In The New Disability History: John Williams-Searle, “Cold Charity: Manhood, Brotherhood, and the Transformation of Disability, 1870-1900,” pp. 157-186
2) In Why I Burned My Book: Paul K. Longmore and David Goldberger, “The League of the Physically Handicapped and the Great Depression: A Case Study in the New Disability History,” pp. 53-101
Answer one of the following questions:
1) Drawing on do you think employers turned against workers with disabilities during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Your answer should draw on both Longmore and Williams-Searle.
2) Alternatively, you can summarize in several sentences (or possibly a short paragraph each) your “muddiest point(s)” in Williams-Searle and Longmore.
Having read these two articles, it does seem as though businesses turned against their disabled employees. A disability came to be regarded as a “marker of incompetence, dependency, and even immorality” in direct contrast with the emerging notion of the able-bodied person being “skillful and brave, yet devoted to temperate living and the exercise of manly foresight” (Williams-Searle, 162-163). Rather than lament how terrible/wrong/immoral this all seems, allow me to instead play the unfeeling advocate. These railroad corporations, demonized in Williams-Searle’s article, were running a business in a cut throat capitalist society. These business owners were a reflection of their society. Should it have been the responsibility and burden of CEOs and corporate moguls to set the moral tone of their society? The affirmative answer goes entirely against the grain of a free market society. This point is, I believe, even stronger when one considers the corporate perspective during the Great Depression discussed in the Longmore article. Was it the responsibility of a corporation to hire persons whom society and government declared to be unfit for duty? Would it have been responsible or fair to hire people with disabilities simply to appease their cries of discrimination, when thousands of able bodied people in those same cities were similarly unemployed?
Employers did turn against workers with disabilities during the nineteenth century, but I think it was more sever during the twentieth century. John Williams-Searle mentioned how the definition of “manhood” was such an important factor to disabled people. If a man had an injury or was disabled, then that would “imperil” his manhood. During the late nineteenth century, railroaders understood the meaning of risk because they confronted their fear of working on the Railroad. The interesting part was how railroaders would use their injury as a “partial disability” to receive a type of honor. The “Red Badge of Courage” helped transition a railroad worker to an “experienced railroader” (p.161) On a positive note, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers established insurance plans for railroaders. However, it took a different turn as railroaders noticed they had to compete even more for jobs with those who were “apparent able-bodied.” In addition, what made these employers turn against their disabled employees? Was it their appearance they were protecting, their profits, or simply a part of how media wanted these employers to treat the disabled?
Paul K. Longmore explains that during the twentieth century there was not many disabled workers, especially after Franklin Roosevelt. Society asked what would he do when he is disabled. However, Roosevelt with some professional help promoted the “mode of social validation” when he overcame his disability (p.62). Disabled people were suppose to be hidden from the public and many parents were ashamed to have a child that did not look “normal.” The League of the Physically Handicapped did not concentrated on their diagnosis, but rather the discrimination they faced when applying for a job. He explains how actresses, painters, actors, basically any able-bodied that had the beauty and that obtained normality was able to get a job. He states, “…we were the only people who were looked upon as not worthy, not capable of work”(p.64).
The twentieth century was extremely rough for disabled people because of the laws that were passed, the great depression, and the increase of the importance of society’s views on disabled people.
Both articles displayed the lengths at which business turned against those with disabilities during that time. In the essay by Williams-Searle, it seemed as though the railroad brotherhood was going to rise up and support their fellow workers who had become disabled instead, they decided to protect themselves at the cost of those with disabilities and changed society’s view of those with disability. What had once demonstrated experience was now viewed as a sign of dependency (161). On page 164, Williams-Searle states: “Corporations rationalized their bureaucracies, pursued greater efficiencies, and established scientific management policies that systematically excluded even slightly injured workers from the running trades.” for the next two pages, he gives examples of how those with disabilities (no matter the severity) were excluded from work by their co-workers and corporations. Longmore described a time after the Great Depression where those with disabilities had hope of finding work under the New Deal. This wasn’t the case, it seemed that the New Deal only covered those “able-bodied” workers. Instead, they were deemed “permanently unemployable” (Location 860). While they continued to fight for the right to work (rather than receive charity), most of the workers with disabilities were never viewed as more able than the advertised helpless “cripple.”
I think that the employers did turn on workers with disabilities because they were unable to get jobs. If they did have jobs they were paid less money. Some employers also had people do tests that would show if they were disabled so that they would not have to hire them.
After reading both readings, I definitely believe employees turned against workers with disabilities during the late 19th century and early 20th century. As discussed before, being “able-bodied” (no handicap, citizen, provide for self and family) was crucial to having an average or better life. Douglas Bayton states, “Disability is everywhere in history, once you begin looking for it” (Longmore, 55). The first reading, by Williams-Searle, discusses how railroad workers go into this carrier knowing the dangers of it and potentially getting a disability. When disabilities, like fingers being chopped off, are acquired, some would use their disability as a “partial disability” to receive a type of honor. On the other hand, many never thought about how much harder they would have to compete against other for jobs once injured. In the reading by Longmore, he discusses how, with the medical approach, “by typically regarding disabled people as patients or dependent objects of charity, it has thereby rendered them historically inherit or invisible” (Longmore, 53). If you had a disability, society would deny you a job and have you sent to help out local charities instead. Two separate groups were formed during this time because of the anger this brought to them. First, The League of Physically Handicapped, were a group of protesters, all with disabilities, who “concentrated more on discrimination rather than diagnoses” (Longmore, 57). They wanted people to understand more about disabilities. Second, was a group of younger adults in New York City. They took a more political and “handicapped” route. Both groups had to protest, beg, and plea for a chance at work, but were ultimately shut down because of the view society had stuck in their mind.
Based on the readings, I do believe that employers turned against workers with disabilities. Williams-Searle focuses on railroad workers in his article during the time period of 1870-1900. Manliness really seemed to define if they were normal or able-bodied and it also “repeatedly undermined the ability of the railroad brotherhoods to respect or provide care for their disabled comrades” (159). There were insurance plans that would help cover those who were rendered disabled. However, there was also a lot of suspicion for a few that filed false claims. This suspicion was then exaggerated and projected onto those with genuine claims. This suspicion “resoundingly demonstrates that disabling injury and character were inextricably linked in the minds of the able-bodied” (163). This is another attack on the character of the disabled and how employers were turning against workers.
Longmore’s article shows how a group of individuals with varied disabilities banded together in a very public manner to fight for equal opportunities for employment during a time when the government was handing out jobs. Those with disabilities were not considered employable. In the article Knauth was quoted saying, “this is not an organization to give work to those who are permanently unemployable. ..he advised them to seek work from private businesses” (67). Those employed were given unfair wages compared to those in similar positions and others were subject to physical examinations in the interview process.
I dont think that employers turned their backs on the disabled during this time period. It seems, at least in the Williams-Searle reading that fellow employees made it difficult for the disabled to work amongst the able bodied. Workers were deemed more manly through the scars and wounds of job related injuries so much so that they’re partial disabilities were seen as markers of the experienced. Those “foolish” enough to suffer catastrophic injury were cast aside and seen as less manly. In the Longmore reading, we see the societal views on disability and dependency. The disabled were denied employment and even those capable of working in positions where physical limitations were irrelevant were denied employment. The public fight for employment by a group of the disabled against the injustices society placed on those deemed unemployable is then rationalized because of such discriminations. So I don’t think it was as simple as an employer turning his back. These readings highlight broken camaraderie and societal stigmas rather than a collective struggle between the disabled workforce and management.
do believe that employers turned against workers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The book, Why I Burned My Book And Other Essays On Disability discusses the plight of disabled workers in the chapter “The League of the Physically Handicapped and the Great Depression.” This time period was devastating financially for many but for the disabled, it was a time of frustration and fear over the inability to find employment. Many employers forced disabled workers to take physical tests that they could not possibly pass and that had nothing to do with the job at hand. Because of the discrimination they felt, several people organized “The League of the Physically Handicapped.” This small group demonstrated at the Emergency Relief Bureau and demanded jobs. The chapter states, “The six protesters and some supporting picketers had physical disabilities. They claimed that they and other handicapped job seekers suffered disability-based discimination at the hands of the work-relief agencies and the federal government’s Work Progress Administration. The chapter discusses issues that individuals like Sylvia Flexer Bassoff faced when she applied for jobs. She wore a leg brace and enrolled at Drake Business School to study stenography and typing. She excelled at both but could not get a job. She said, “in my naivete, I figured, I’ll graduate from the Drake Business School and they’re all going to grab me…well, nobody grabbed me.”
In, A New Disability History, the article by Searle entitled “Cold Charity, Manhood, Brotherhood, and the Transformation of Disability,” we learned about how men were perceived in this generation. The expectations of males (how they were supposed to look, etc.) contributed to the unfortunate experiences of disabled men. The ideas of masculinity affected how disability and public charity were perceived. Perception is often reality and the perception of disabled men as “unworthy” influenced policies.
Disabled workers had not necessarily enjoyed the best of conditions prior to this time period, but it does seem that their situation did worsen, in part because of the actions of employers. As Williams-Searle addresses in his essay, trainmen originally held a slightly positive view of disability. Minor injuries exemplified bravery, strong work-ethic, and masculinity. Furthermore, preparation for accidents exuded manhood in the form of responsibility and temperance. As the century drew to a close, these opinions shifted to the opposite end of the spectrum. Now, disability demonstrated imprudence and ineptness at their ascribed jobs. The employers further exasperated these views and forced the railroad unions to choose between their injured compatriots or their continuing influence in negotiations between labor and capital. This work illustrates the dramatic shifts that occurred among railroad workers (and likely other fields of employment) and clearly shows that disability came to be intolerable for either the employers or their fellow employees.
Longmore and Goldberger also display a lack of acceptance and opportunity for people with disabilities during the New Deal. Of course, there is not a great deal of continuity in this essay to judge whether or not conditions had been significantly better before. Regardless, the militancy and actions taken by the League of the Physically Handicapped do suggest a shift amongst private sector employers that marginalized people with disabilities and forced them to seek government redress for the lack of economic opportunity. Now whether this was a problem specifically tied to disability or a widespread phenomenon that effected most people during the Great Depression remains unanswered. Naturally, one would suspect that the lack of employment throughout the United States would mean that people with disabilities would be particularly vulnerable to these economic shifts. Nonetheless, the demand for and growth of government programs does seem to offer a great deal of circumstantial evidence that private sector employers had left people with disabilities behind.
In the late 19th and early 20th century I believe that employers did turned against disabled workers. It’s very simple, if employers hired people without disabilities this would be more beneficial to their business and would eventually bring in more income. Hiring someone who was disabled at the time was perceived as a setback. Often times people with disabilities had to take certain exams or test to prove that he/she isn’t disabled. Knowing how bias these tests were employers would use them to their advantage solely not to hire someone with a disability.
Yes employers turned against workers with disabilities, although there were some cases of hope. According to Longmore and Umansky (2001), “Able-bodied workers, sometimes within their own organizations and sometimes colluding with their employers, attempted to push disabled co-workers out of workforce-in effect, exaggerating the economic preconditions for dependency (p.160). These writers continue to add that railways management thought disabled employees would make “passengers nervous.” Also, disabled employees were viewed as a risk for “fraudulent claims for pre-existing injuries” in case they became injured at work. (p.164). Employers declined to continue accommodating disabled workers like they did before by assigning “lighter duties.” On page 165, Longmore and Umansky suggest that disabled workers were thought to be responsible for their injuries- “… [A]ble-bodied railroaders had to agree that injured workers had failed their responsibilities at work and had thus failed as independent men (p.165).
Longmore in “Why I Burned My Book” pages 62-63 has written several accounts on discrimination against disabled persons despite having the required training. “Yearning for the self-dependence and dignity prized by able-bodied workers, they prepared to go to work. But they found that the biases about cripples in every other sphere of society had spawned discrimination in the job market too.” Furthermore, “Some businesses required applicants to undergo physical examinations unrelated to a job’s tasks.” (p.62). Disabled persons “looked to New Deal work programs to give them jobs just like those given to unemployed nonhandicapped workers. Instead, they found the culturally dominant image of the crippled had been inscribed in the avowedly innovative federal policies.”(p.63). During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, disabled persons had to toil to be incorporated in the mainstream job market.
I am not sure if the employers turned on the disabled, but rather it appears that most employers never even believed a disabled person could be efficient and hardworking as the able bodies. John Williams-Searle explains, “Corporations rationalized their bureaucracies, pursued greater efficiencies, and established scientific management policies that systematically excluded even slightly injured workers from the running trades….[C]ompany managers feared disabled trainmen would work too slowly and would be more susceptible to injury (164).”
In Why I Burned My Book, Longmore explains, “some businesses required applicants to undergo physical examinations unrelated to a job’s tasks (62).” This was a way for employers to justify not hiring individuals with a disability. Longmore also shares, … modern policy makers combined old English Poor Law classifications of impairment to define disability rigorously as an absolute inability to engage in productive labor (75)”. They were trying to keep able bodies in the workforce and disabled bodies out by catergorizing who was “worthy” and “unworthy” for these jobs.
I believe that employers did turn against workers with disabilities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. According to Paul K Longmore, this is especially true during the Great Depression and World War II. At this time jobs were extremely scarce and the government considered people with disabilities unfit to work. I find this extremely ironic since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was himself disabled. However, it seems that the society as a whole still feared disability. I believe this partially explains why some disabled workers such as Barney Baldwin found work in freak shows. However, although this allowed some individuals with disabilities to maintain financial independence, it also meant that society saw them as subhuman. There is also a return of the idea of disability as punishment for immoral behavior. In my opinion, as long as disability had these explanations society could discriminate against disabled people with impunity.
I do think that businesses turned on the disabled during this time. The New Disability History states that disabled brothers were viewed with pity and suspicion and that comrade was not for the able-bodies railroader. Additional, in Why I Burned My Book I do not think that the WPA would have needed to force New York to give disabled individuals jobs if the business where not refusing the jobs to disabled workers. The disabled workers would not have been labeled as unemployable if business wanted to hire them.
Based on the readings, employers are partially to blame for pushing persons with disabilities away, but other able-bodied workers share a part of the blame as well. The reading by Williams-Searle provides a good context for the progression of how disability in the workplace became increasingly more stigmatized as time went on. As far as the employers were concerned, the train system needed to be run more efficiently, so changes were put into place to ensure that the railroad was faster and more efficient, even though that came at the cost of having less safe working conditions for the railroads. As far as the employees were concerned, the blame for becoming injured in the first place was often placed upon the railroad worker for being careless, inebriated, or incompetent, instead of placing more fault upon the railroad companies for providing unsafe working conditions. Fellow employees began to considered injured co-workers to be a threat to the standards of masculinity and health held in esteem by their fraternal organizations/unions, and as such, worked to push them out of the workforce, leaving jobs for those considered more worthy. Instead of banding together in support for their fellow workers, railroaders challenged their masculinity and competency. The Longmore essay goes into the discussion of how many employers held arbitrary standards of physical capability that excluded many persons from being under their employ, even if those standards were not necessary for the completion of the required work tasks. Those who were able to obtain employment often got lower-paying, less stable employment than their able-bodied counterparts. It is striking how in discussing the Depression, it is seen how the relief efforts were put out for young, unemployed men–if they were able-bodied and worthy of the need to work, as opposed to the disabled person, who allegedly belonged in a dependent class anyway.
Did employers turn against disabled persons? The answer is very clearly yes. More troubling, however, is that instead of helping fellow workers with disabilities, many times throughout history nondisabled persons turned against disabled persons, as well, trying to distance themselves, and not considering persons with disabilities as equals.
I believe that employers played a part in redefining disability into a more negative stigmatized phenomena during the 19th & 20th centuries. In the beginning of Cold Charity, Searle provides that in the 19th century early railroad workers who had a slight disfigurement where seen as brave and experienced railroad workers. a missing finger was like a rite of passage (pg. 158). However later on the employers use their togetherness as a “collective” identity, this idea of brotherhood as a conforming bond to shape the workers ideas and attitudes towards disability (pg. 159). For instance, “All brotherhood publications periodically ran articles deriding the manliness, prudence, and competence of now-disabled men” (pg. 163).
Further, in The League of the Physically Handicapped the article depicts an attitude of how employers saw disabled employees during the great depression. As the a group of qualified disabled individuals with all sort of different disabilities gather together to protest ERB because of workplace job discrimination. They tried to discredit the disabled protesters by claiming that the communist had their hand in it, because the “cripples” could not have organized such an action as this (Longmore, pg. 68)
Thus providing that the employees and more specifically the business leaders such as Oswald W. Knauth help shape the media thus shape the light in which disability is seen in the public’s eyes which has a great impact on how society views disability.
1) Drawing on do you think employers turned against workers with disabilities during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Your answer should draw on both Longmore and Williams-Searle.
I think the answer is yes. According to Longmore , he states “typically regarding the disabled people…they were dependent objects of charity, and hereby rendered as inert or invisible.” ( Why I Burned my Book p.55). The attitudes towards disabled people were that they were unfir to work or not compentent enough to do the jobs. Their physical capabilities were not met to complete tasks according to Longmore.
John Williams-Searle’s essay on Cold Charity was a liitle different. There were disabled men that worked on railroads, but employers still tried to force them not to work. His essay examined the way ” members of railroad brotherhoods struggled to situate the disabled trainmen in the changing work culture of rairoading between 1870-1900.” ( p.159).
I would say that overall through the late nineteenth century, employers of the disabled did in one sense or another eventually turn their backs on people wirth disabilities.
In Williams-Searle’s essay; In the early days of the railroads in the late eighteenth century and the early twenthieth century,railroad work was dangerous and workers were consistently hurt on the job. Many workers were disabled. Most of the injuries seemed to be among (BLE) the engineers. The men were accused of being incompentent on the job by their employers, even if they were careful on the job. Ultimately,a federal Safety Appliance Act was passed in 1893. The railroad workplace grew marginally safer after the passage of the Act,but had a long way to go to be really safe.
Longmore during the Depression of the 1930’s especially in the early 30’s,a group of disabled young adults began to fight for their rights for disabled people to get jobs. They fought the government, especailly the (WPA….The Works Progress Administration). They were the league of the physically handicap and they fought job discrimination starting in 1935. They fought the government for years. There were inprovemnts and the league finally dissolved in 1938. Disabled people still fought for equal salaries and eqaulity in jobs.
I believe employers turned against disabled workers to protect their own interests. As stated in the reading by William-Searle, “they feared they would work to slowly and would be more susceptible to injury”. It was also believed by the railroad companies that disabled workers would make passengers nervous. And who really wants somebody working for them who has a history of being injured on the job and creeps out the passengers. Also by potentially hiring a disabled worker, if they did potentially get hurt again on the job, the fear of them claiming some of the old injury on the current claim meant a larger pay out by the company. Even as I read in Longmore, employers not only turned against disabled workers but when they did hire them they were discriminated against. As one woman stated others who were no where near as good as her got hired on but she was not because she was handicapped. And the if they were hired it was usually ” part time or temporary and at a lower pay”. I think being disabled in the late 19th and early 20th centuries came with a stigma that you can not or will not work as hard if you have a disability, and this was most likely the reason why employers turned against disabled people.
After reading the different articles related to the showcasing those individuals deemed as “freaks,” I felt torn by the motives of their “exploitation.” I feel as if those persons with the abnormalities were displayed by different motives pertaining to their different situations. For example, in “Freakery,” it states that the term freak is a way of thinking about presenting people-a frame of mind and a set of practices. These participants were involved in carnivals, museums, and circuses with the motive of receiving money. Their situations (individual background stories) were constructed for a profit. Yet, these people developed a camaraderie and a certain perspective on life. There were those that were “with it” (the participants) and those that “we’re not.” (The outsiders) by doing this I believe that they made their situation more bearable. It is a human want to be accepted and even though the “normal society,” shunned them, they found a way to cope and progress. This was also the case for the Igorots. They were a native culture and they also made up a “family,” but because they were different they were eligible for hire. They were brought to the United States in March if 1905 with a contract that they would receive $15 a month salary plus their expenses. This must have been more than thy would ever make on their native villages and their conditions may have been improved, but it was done at the cost of (in my opinion) exploitation.