Actually it wasn't Carnegie, it was his right hand man Henry Frick who was a ruthless SOB. Carnegie was largely hands off at the time and Frick was really running the show, although Carnegie did know what was happening. Frick made the decision to bring in the Pinkerton's to break the strike and it went poorly with deaths on both sides. While the incident did cause a rift between Carnegie and Frick, I think is was the Johnstown Flood that Carnegie felt most guilty about even though it wasn't his direct action that caused it, and I think a lot of the blame was due to decisions made by Frick. I know this mostly because one of my best friends is married to Frick's great granddaughter. Interesting family history.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:04 PM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > One could argue that a management shooting employees that wanted to > organize or strike has resulted in our current internet... > This is the logic: > > Andrew Carnegie hired Pilkington guards to control or suppress a labor > uprising. Can't remember if it was a strike or organizing activities. One > of the Pilkington guys shot and killed one of Carnegies employees. > > He was wracked with guilt for the rest of his life and attempted to atone > for the act by building many free libraries across the nation. those > libraries undoubtedly were critical in the launching of careers of many in > science and industry. Probably some NASA guys in there. > > So, shoot an employee and get men on the moon, which led to the internet. > > Simple. > > -----Original Message----- From: Robert Andrews > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:50 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] installer hire / training process. > > Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely... It goes both > ways and always will.. But rarely have union employees had crews > shoot management.. Back in the 1910-1920 era, that was _not_ true the > other way around... Now there were cases of unions shooting their OWN > people to get non-unionized groups to unionize... > > On 04/28/2017 09:13 AM, Larry Smith wrote: > >> When unions were a "shield" for the workers to protect and >> garner better conditions they were reasonable; once they >> turned into the "club" to beat management and companies >> into doing their will they became despickable (IMO). >> >> >
