Monthly Archives: March 2022

Sometimes You Have to Lead a Union

In observance of National Women’s month here in March 2022, I’ld like to share this story.

Elaine Parker’s grandmother, Lottie Stepansky, served as a rehearsal pianist for Isabella Stewart Gardner, the philanthropist behind the nominal Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Massachusetts. Gardner liked to sing opera, apparently, and Lottie Stepansky did well enough in her employ to purchase a baby grand piano from the Steinert showroom in Boston in the mid-1920s.
Gardner is described in a quote posted on the Museum’s website:

 Mrs. Jack Gardner is one of the seven wonders of Boston. There is nobody like her in any city in this country. She is a millionaire Bohemienne. She is the leader of the smart set, but she often leads where none dare follow… She imitates nobody; everything she does is novel and original.

— A BOSTON REPORTER

In 1915, though, Lottie Stepansky was a labor activist in the tobacco stripper union. She likely had to seek other work when the major cigar manufacturers left Boston—and hand-rolled cigar production—for machine-rolled cigars in non-union locales.

Local Labor Notes: Lottie Stepansky as Cigar Stripper Union candidateLocal Labor Notes: Lottie Stepansky as Cigar Stripper Union candidate 11 Jun 1915, Fri The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) Newspapers.com

As reported in Local Labor Notes in the Friday, 11 June 2015, edition of The Boston Globe (emphasis added):
“The nomination of candidates for the semiannual election of officers of the Cigar Factory Strippers Union took place In Paine Memorial Hall last night. There will be only one contest, that for the seven places on the executive board, to which 13 aspire. The nominees are Mary Blewett for president: Annie Rosen and Gertrude Levy, vice presidents; Anna Bowen, financial secretary; Agnes Gallagher, recording secretary; Mary Blewett, Esther Jacobs and Gertrude Levy, trustees; Martha Forrest, Elizabeth Hyslop and Esther Jacobs, auditors; Dora Kenneler, Annie Titus, Marf Jones, Mary Batchelder, Eva Doyle, Esther Jacobs, Evelyn Forrest, Annie Monks, Mary Hurley, Annie Kline, Sadie Dourant, Goldie Brittan and Lottie Stepansky, executive board; Elizabeth Hyslop, Agnes Gallagher, Anna T. Bowen, Mary Jones, Esther Jacobs, Gertrude Levy, Sadie Courant, Mary Blewett and Rita Williams, delegates to the C. L. U.”
————–
excerpted from Wikipedia
On July 7, 1919, roughly 2,100 of Boston’s 2,400 cigar makers walked off the job in protest of their employer’s failure to meet their demand of a 13 7/11% raise. Three of Boston’s largest cigar manufacturers chose to leave the city rather than meet the union’s demands and a number of union members formed a cigar-making co-operative. By August 30, 1919, all of the remaining manufacturers had reached agreements with the union.
During the early years of World War I, Boston’s cigar factories hired many refugees from Belgium. In addition to being expert cigar makers, many of them were socialists. After this, the manufacturers clashed with the local union, who threatened to strike if the manufacturers hired more employees, implemented the use of machinery, weighed tobacco, ended the practice of cigar makers using their mouths to shape cigars, or dismissed an employee without the consent of a union committee.
On August 13, 1919, Waitt & Bond announced that they would move from Boston to Newark, New Jersey as a result of the walkout. Prior to the strike, Waitt & Bond had employed 1,200 cigar makers and had a weekly payroll of $30,000. Upon moving to Newark, Waitt & Bond operated on a non-union machine production basis. Other cigars makers followed suit. C. C. A. also moved to Newark while Breslin & Campbell moved to New York City. Both switched to machine production.
—————
What does it mean to be a tobacco stripper? How pervasive and long-lasting in pay inequality?

In a January 1907 article titled “Employment of Women in Industries: Cigar-Making: Its History and Present Tendencies” by Edith Abbott, writing from Washington, DC, on pages 1-37 of the Journal of Political Economy, some interesting observations–supported by evidence–are laid out.

The increased employment of women in cigar-making seems to indicate its tendency to develop into a “women’s industry” and furnishes an interesting example of the industrial displacement of men by women. The history of the industry makes it of peculiar interest, because originally the women were displaced by the men, and in these later years they have only come into their own again.

The manufacture of cigars in this country is an industry of nearly a century’s growth, but it has not continuously through-out its history employed a large proportion of women. This is, at first, not easy to understand, for it has always been a trade for which women are seemingly better qualified than men. No part of the making of cigars is heavy work, and skill depends upon manual dexterity–upon delicacy and sensitiveness of touch. A brief description of the three important processes in a cigar factory-“stripping,” “making,” and “packing”–will serve to make this quite clear.

The preliminary process, of “stripping,” which includes “booking,” is the preparation of the leaf for the hands of the cigar-maker. The large mid-rib is stripped out, and, if the tobacco is of the quality for making wrappers, the leaves are also “booked”–smoothed tightly across the knee and rolled into a compact pad ready for the cigar-maker’s table. Even in the stripping-room there are different grades of work, all unskilled and all practically monopolized by women and girls.

The stripping of the “filler” leaf for the inner “bunch” of the cigar is usually piece-work, but the stripping of the wrapper and binder is likely to be time-work, to avoid such haste as might tear the more expensive leaf. If a woman “books” her own wrappers, she gets higher pay than one who merely “strips ;” and one who only “books” gets more than either, for this is much harder work and keeps the whole body in motion. The scale of wages in a large union factory in Boston furnishes a measure of the supposed differences in these occupations: binder-stripper, $6 a week; wrapper-stripper who “books,” $7 a week; filler-stripper, $6 to $Io a week. The lack of skill in any of this work is indicated by the fact that in places where the union requires a three years’ apprenticeship for cigar-making two weeks is the rule for stripping, and competent forewomen say that “a bright girl can learn in a day.” In England the situation in this occupation is rather different. “The work is well adapted for female hands, and in provincial factories they are largely employed in this department. In London, on the contrary, there seem to be not more than thirty women engaged as strippers.” (Booth, Life and Labor of the People, Vol. IV, p. 224.)

Division of labor has been slow in making its way into cigar factories. The best cigar is, still made by a single workman, and the whole process demands a high degree of skill. Slightly inferior cigars, however, can be made with “molds” by less skilled workmen.

Wage disparity between women and men is a long-standing issue, as shown in these pages from Abbott’s article.

It is not fair, ordinarily, to compare women’s wages with men’s, because
men and women in factories so seldom do the same work. In cigar-making and cigar-packing, however, there have been exceptions to this general rule

 

Sometimes You Have to Sue Your Boss for a Hostile Workplace, a Campaign of Harassment, and Operating in an Arbitrary and Capricious Manner

In observance of Women’s History Month here in March 2022, I’d like to share this story.

Previous readers of this blog have seen how Elaine Parker devoted herself to serving others, with a particular focus on services for the blind. That, and her other vocations along the way–training wedding directors on special needs weddings, for example, and helping establish the Middle Tennessee Professional Chefs Association–were accomplished in Tennessee in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, right on up until her 2021 passing. I will write more about her international, culturally informed wedding directing and culinary adventures–she visited 60 countries–in future installments. Miss Elaine, as many called her, wanted her obituary to focus on her positive accomplishments.

There is another aspect to her story, however, worth noting. She would not back down to the powerful in the face of injustice. As a woman heading a state program in the 1970s, she and another woman filed suit in 1974 charging that Tennessee State Welfare Department Commissioner Fred Friend’s plan to demote them was consistent with how Friend had “exhibited considerable hostility” toward them and their programs and had undertaken a “campaign of harassment” against them.

The Middle Tennessee Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) announced the formation of a legal defense fund for the women and the NASW itself contributed funds to their defense.

Mrs. Greta Hinds, director of the Food Stamp Program, and Mrs. Elaine Parker, director of Services for the Blind, charged Friend operated his department “in an arbitrary and capricious manner” and violated state and federal laws which control programs administered by his department, including violating the state affirmative action program and Executive Order No. 17 of Tennessee’s governor by replacing the two women with men.

Just prior to taking their case to Tennessee’s State Supreme Court in January 1975, Elaine Parker was notified by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that Tennessee ranked first in the nation in rehabilitating the blind.

The state had a 57% increase in rehabilitation of the blind in the latest HEW figures for July 11 through August 31, 1974. Nationwide, there was a decline in rehabilitation of the disabled, due to current economic conditions which made it difficult for an able person to get work.

Tennessee surpassed its goal for putting blind persons back to work more than any other state in the South. Elaine Parker’s office helped 433 blind persons go back to work. The goal for 1974 was 400.

Mrs. Parker, who had been in her position for three years, had also increased the income of blind persons running food stands in government and private office buildings. In 1971, the average income for stand operators was $4,992 and as of June, 1974 the average was $6,372.

Lawsuit over planned demotion of Elaine ParkerLawsuit over planned demotion of Elaine Parker 02 Jan 1975, Thu The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee) Newspapers.com

19 Sep 1974, Thu The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee) Newspapers.com

Friend’s plans were front page news on Friday, August 30, 1974.

Sources say four to be demotedSources say four to be demoted 30 Aug 1974, Fri The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee) Newspapers.com

Sources say Friend plans to demote four workersSources say Friend plans to demote four workers 30 Aug 1974, Fri The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee) Newspapers.com

As reported by DOUG HALL in a front page story in the 22 January 1975 edition of The Tennesseean:

State Welfare Commissioner Horace Bass yesterday rescinded the controversial plans of his predecessor, Fred Friend, to reorganize the department and demote four key department personnel. “We just didn’t agree with the decision of Mr. Friend to begin with,” Bass said. “We think the demotions just weren’t justified.”

BASS MET YESTERDAY afternoon with Gov. Ray Blanton and discussed the matter, and Bass said Blanton “concurred completely” with the decision. Bass said the decision will take effect immediately. The decision to nullify Friend’s reorganization plans makes moot a lawsuit which had prevented the demotions of two of the employees, Mrs. Greta Hinds, director of the state food stamp program, and Mrs. Elaine Parker, director of services for the blind.

“I am pleased that the governor appointed a commissioner who has the compassion to rescind an order which disrupted the entire department,” said George Barrett, the attorney who represented Mrs. Hinds and Mrs. Parker.

22 Jan 1975, Wed The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee) Newspapers.com

It was a page 11 story the day before, 21 January 1975, where Hall wrote:

The State Supreme Court has indicated it will not rule on a motion to dismiss a suit brought by two department employees until the new administration makes a decision in the matter. Mrs. Elaine Parker, director of services for the blind, and Mrs. Greta Hinds, director of the state food stamp program, filed suit in Chancery Court here last September asking that Friend be enjoined from demoting them. Chancellor C. Allen High issued a temporary restraining order which has prohibited the demotions thus far.
Tennessee Supreme Court Declines to Intervene on Stay for Parker, HindsTennessee Supreme Court Declines to Intervene on Restraining Order Protecting Parker, Hinds 21 Jan 1975, Tue The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee) Newspapers.com
Parker and Hinds appear to have had some notion of the decision before it became public, as they issued invitations titled “Come Celebrate with Us” for Saturday, Jan. 18, 1975.

Elaine Parker’s papers contained unsent invitations on red, white, and blue stationery (including lined envelopes) that read “Come Celebrate with Us, Saturday – Jan. 18, 1975, 5:30 – 7:30 p.m., address. Given by Greta Hinds and Elaine Parker. Regrets – phone number.

This blog draws considerably on reporting in The Tennessean, physical newspaper clips preserved in Elaine Parker’s files, and electronic clips from Newspapers.com.