Introduction
The Progressive Era, which took place between the late 19th and the early 20th centuries, was a pivotal event in the history of the United States. The time frame being referred to was characterized by major social, economic, and political disturbances as the U.S. dealt with the vast reconstruction of society due to technological progress, urbanization, and industrialization. In the middle of such deep-rooted societal changes, the tide of reform movements rose, driven by the growing discontent with the status quo, which had been poorly combating the disparities and other social injustices. Progressivists of the Era of Progress were zealous in their striving for change and coped with problems such as racial discrimination, labor exploitation, political corruption, and women’s suffrage. This paper investigates the progressiveness of the period by analyzing the general trends in employment and industrial development as reflected in significant Supreme Court cases that shaped the sphere of labor relations and corporate influence. Even though the progressives were the reformists, the contamination of Supreme Court decisions as in Adair v. United States, Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), Lochner v. New York (1905), and the Erdman Act helped the corporate interests that overweighed the workers’ rights, thereby obstructing the achievement of an agenda that was genuinely progressive.
Adair v. United States.
In the context of federal mastery of employers’ jurisdiction over employment conditions, e.g., the right to hire or discharge workers over union membership was the issue in the Adair v. United States case. 1908 was the turning point of the contest between progressives and workers in the right of work age. In its verdict, the Court declared that the Federal government lacks the power to tackle those issues; otherwise, the companies’ right to free contact with their employees will be violated (Oyez). This groundbreaking verdict established labor unions’ difficulties in organizing and working collectively to obtain better pay and working conditions. The ruling protected employers from dictating how they manage their workforce, which had a ripple effect (Oyez). This diminished the core principles of collective action and solidarity that were key to the labor movement’s social and economic equality quest.
In Adair v. United States, the Court demonstrated the general philosophy prevailing in the Progressive Era, during which corporate interests were given primacy over labor rights through the judicial interpretation of the constitutional principles (Oyez). This judicial system already showed a preference for the employer’s independence in labor relations, which was the main socio-economic condition of that time. During the Industrial Revolution, the economic elites greatly influenced the government and corporate law, reshaping the policy toward their best interests (Oyez). The judges’ respect for corporate privileges sustained a system of exploitation and inequality, reducing the workers’ ability to achieve work guarantees (Oyez). The Courts’s tilt towards employers’ ability to choose work conditions exacerbated power imbalances in capitalist industrialism, hence, retarding labor reforms geared towards redressing the inequalities.
Subsequently, the Adair versus the United States case in the Court also revealed how difficult progressive reformers faced social and economic equity despite their efforts. The opposition to the labor and social reforms by the judiciary’s unperturbed protection of corporate interests made the influential effort and the lobbying of labor organizers and social reformers in vain, and they were belligerent. Thus, it became difficult to make any meaningful changes.
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
1918 witnessed a significant event, the fight against child labor in the Progressive Era; the case Hammer v. Dagenhart was a pivotal moment in the battle. The case was the instance by which the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act was established because it was valid in the point that it declared the illegalization of child labor during inter-state trade (Ballotpedia). It was a watershed moment in the fight against rampant child labor across the country with the enactment of the Act in 1916, which made child shipment and sale of products made by minors illegal (Ballotpedia). The enactment of this piece of legislation epitomized the emerging public concern about the negative impacts of child labor on domestic industry and national welfare, as reformers aimed at ensuring the protection of the livelihood and quality of life of vulnerable young workers.
The Supreme Court, in its Hoover v. Dagenhart case, grossly diminished the prospects for major reform when it rejected the Keating-Owen Act, which was a very controversial decision. The main idea of Chief Justice Edward D (Ballotpedia) is that White was a federalist, and the states’ authority in the union was to regulate labor practices in their territories. The Court held that the Act, although it leans too far away from Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and has the potential to violate the reserved rights of the states, is thus invalid as a whole (Ballotpedia). The watershed case showed the judiciary’s reluctance to deal with social and economic issues. Likewise, it became involved when basic human rights and ethical issues were at stake. The decision of the Court approved the states’ authority to regulate offending minors. Thus, child labor persisted in being harmful and deadly (Ballotpedia). It directly undermines reformers’ attempts, worsening the poverty and deprivation of opportunities experienced by many across the nation.
Lochner v. New York (1905).
One of the main cases in the progressive era that is continuously debated regarding the limit of government control in work conditions is Lochner v. New York (1905). In the basic sense, the question was whether the NYS statute mandating that bakery workers should not work more than 60 hours a week and 10 hours a day was valid or not and whether it was meant to safeguard their health and well-being (Thirteen Pbs). The broader mood of the time, which aimed at the removal of the exploitative working conditions typical of industrial enterprises, is reflected by this enactment. Regarding the incredibly controversial case of Lochner v. New York, the Supreme Court turned down the New York law by five to four.
Writing to express his belief, Justice Rufus Peckham declared that the statute deprived freedom of contract as provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In its ruling, the Court held that the Act violated the freedom of employers and workers to choose their employment methods by arbitrarily intervening in the private contractual relationships between employer and employee (Thirteen Pbs). This verdict of the Court was its clear signal of a laissez-faire approach to economic regulation, which, first and foremost, meant employers’ rights were favored above and beyond employees’ health and welfare.
Despite its detrimental association with labor rights, the court case Lochner v. New York sparked protests and led to further actions to take care of the status quo. It gave rise to a significant debate and sparked many political advocates, attorneys, and union members to lobby for legal reforms that address existing structural injustice against workers (Thirteen Pbs). Thus, Lochner v. New York could be called a staging defeat of the progressive cause, which should also make a call to the social group’s efforts to bring about social change. This case underscored the role campaigning and action had to play in the progressive era to challenge existing power structures while building up social justice.
Erdman Act
The Progressive Era saw the federal government take the first steps in molding labor relations in the railroad industry through the Erdman Act of 1898 (The American Yawp). The law, one of the responses to the burgeoning conflict between the management of the railroad and the labor unions, provides mediation and arbitration methods, which should be used to settle disputes peacefully (The American Yawp). This Act was the conspicuous manifestation of the tendency for large-scale reforms, which aimed at using legislative means to reduce labor strife and advance industrial peace. Through the Erdman Act, which seeks to ensure the efficient resolution of disputing parties, there were first attempts to understand the fundamental role of the government in labor relation issues to safeguard workers’ interests and maintain order and stability in economic sectors of strategic importance.
While the Erdman Act was created to promote progressive ideals, it was not legislation that protected most workers. The Act could only satisfactorily solve labor conflicts if it had weak mechanisms for enforcement (The American Yawp). The Act needed effective enforcement tools, which were replaced by voluntary arbitration, which failed to resolve the conflict between labor and management. The Erdman Act demonstrated the problem that the Progressive Era legislative attempts, even if numerous and significant, could run into when they needed a sound enforcement mechanism. Bearing its flaws, the passage of the Erdman Act marked the initial realization of the role of government in labor conflicts. It shaped how future legislative actions have dealt with the core problems in social relationships.
Conclusion
Finally, the Progressive period concluded with numerous progressive initiatives to address those times’ evils above society, politics, and economy. However, the period’s advancement was also undercut by court decisions, often putting concentrated profits ahead of the rights of workers and disadvantaged individuals. Adair v. United States, Hammer v. Dagenhart, Lochner v. New York, and the Erdman Act confirm the contest between progressive reforms, constitutional provisions, and court orders. The Progressive era attained much success in eradicating social injustice but, in the end, still needed to fully reach its ultimate goal: to help create a more progressive society.
Works Cited
Oyez, “Adair v. United States.” Oyez, Oyez, 2023, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/208us161.
Ballotpedia, “Hammer v. Dagenhart.” Ballotpedia, 2023, ballotpedia.org/Hammer_v._Dagenhart.
Thirteen Pbs, “Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).” Justia Law, Thirteen | Pbs Thirteen | Pbs, 2021, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/45/.
The American yawp. “The Progressive Era.” The American Yawp, 7 June 2013, www.americanyawp.com/text/20-the-progressive-era/. Accessed 23 Feb. 2024.
write