The Corporate Strategy to Break Unions through Litigation
A look at the early 20th-century legal offensive by manufacturers intended to bankrupt labor organizations through relentless courtroom battles.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Information received by American Federation of Labor officials suggests that the manufacturers' association, following victories in the hatters' case and the Buck Stove Range case, intends to proceed against several other labor organizations by suing them for damages and restraining them from boycotting. Secretary Lawlor of the hatters notes that the Loewe case will cost them several hundred thousand dollars. The National Association of Manufacturers is fully aware of the financial burdens they can pile upon labor by dragging them into court, with the intent to cripple and disrupt unions by forcing the dissipation of their funds in legal proceedings.
“Their policy is to cripple the unions and disrupt them if possible by forcing the dissipation of their funds in legal proceedings.”
This early 20th-century strategy of using 'lawfare' to drain union resources mirrors modern efforts to undermine collective bargaining and labor rights. The tactic of using the judicial system to bankrupt organizations remains a central feature of industrial conflict in the Pacific Northwest and beyond.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.