Mill owners control their workers' communities in various ways
Textile mill owners still exert a great deal of power in the rural South, Perkel believes, despite the decline of the traditional mill town, because they cultivated a reputation as community benefactors instead of just employers. They exert control through benevolence, but also through control of local schools and media, inculcating a mistrust of external interference and government control.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with George Perkel, May 27, 1986. Interview H-0281. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- PATRICIA RAUB:
-
Do you think that the textile companies continue to exert anywhere near
the same kind of political power in a town or locality that they did,
say, before World War Two? You no longer have the mill towns any more,
but do you think they're still very strong politically?
- GEORGE PERKEL:
-
Yes, I do. I think there has been a change. With few exceptions, they
don't just run everything in the town, dictate everything.
But they do have the predominance of power in most textile areas. The
fact that textile mills are concentrated in certain areas makes the
influence of the employer much greater than if they were spread out
throughout the region. But the fact that they concentrated in certain
areas gives them great political power in those areas.
Well, that sort of brings me into the—I've been
talking about worker characteristics—but, I think, in order
to understand why we have so much difficulty organizing textile workers,
we have to appreciate something about the characteristics of textile
employers as well. And, as you probably are aware, historically, textile
employers in the South have been regarded as public benefactors, rather
than as simply employers. They're the people who brought jobs
to the poorest agricultural South, and they were regarded by the
community leaders and by people generally as benefactors. And they set
up these one-industry towns or company-dominated areas and part of the
benefits that they received from that was almost complete control of
local government. The attitude, or mind-set that has resulted from that
historical situation is a strong sense among textile employers, even
those who may not have come from the South, that they are entitled to be
the king-pin in the industrial and geographic area. Many of them still
retain the paternalistic idea of being responsible for their people,
their hands, as they call them, and there's an authoritarian,
top-down communication system that has departed many non-textile
industries but still is characteristic of the textile industry. The
control of worker lives which had historically been a part of the mill
village sociology still continues in the sense that the mill management
feels that he has a right to know not only what his worker does on the
job but outside of work, and he and his supervisors concern themselves
with what happens outside of work.
They're still important in the church community, the
education community, and through them they still retain a great deal of
control over the lives of textile workers. And certainly, control over
what textile workers read in their local newspapers and what they learn
in schools.
- PATRICIA RAUB:
-
I've heard it said that companies really don't
particularly want workers who have gotten much education, particularly a
whole high school education. I think someone spoke with a mill owner
down in South Carolina who said we'd just as soon have people
who hadn't finished high school.
- GEORGE PERKEL:
-
I think that's true. I think the nature of the work is such,
being generally routine and repetitive, that employers think that people
with higher education would not make good employees for these jobs, and
so they do welcome uneducated people, and I think this is one reason why
blacks have been so successful in getting into the industry in recent
years. To the extent that blacks have low education levels and they
interfere with their ability to get jobs that require higher skills and
higher education. But that is not a problem in textiles.
- PATRICIA RAUB:
-
Has that helped, though, in terms of trying to get workers to organize
any? I think there have been some studies that have said that blacks
have been more receptive.
- GEORGE PERKEL:
-
Yes, blacks have been much more amenable to the call of the Union than
whites in the textile industry. That certainly has been true, and the
successful efforts in the case of J.P. Stevens Company certainly was
largely due to the fact that a substantial proportion of the workforce
in those mills were black.
One other factor that should be mentioned to understand employer
attitudes towards organization and toward the whole process of
organization is the strong hostility that predominates, even stronger
than in non-textile employers, hostility toward government interference.
The notion of anybody coming in and telling the boss what to do is
generally unwelcome in industry, but, in textiles, it's
anathema. It's a matter of pride and almost family feeling
that the boss is in charge and nobody can tell him what he can do and
what he can't do. And this, of course, affects the whole
process of organization because main protection of the right to organize
is afforded by the federal legislation on that. And the employer
hostility toward government interference plays an important role, even
aside from economic and other considerations, in engendering a very
strong anti-union bias among employers in the industry.
Then I should mention some of the economic factors that affect employer
attitudes toward unions. Textiles have been and still are a largely
competitive industry, so that labor cost is extremely important to the
employer, much more so than in many other
industries where you have less competition.