The Job Journey: A History and Evolution of Job Applications (Part Two) A

Vincenzo Frosolone

November 30th, 2023

Abstract: Part Two of this essay achieves what I had been trying to do from the beginning: it outlines the approximate historical backgrounds of each question found on a modern day application form. This took me much, much, much longer than expected, but I am resilient and detail-oriented. Without further ado, and ever looking at anything that has to do with job application forms for the foreseeable future, here it is.

A: The Historical Questions

Katherine Blackford saw the importance of names. In 1912, she theorized that unpretentious birth names anticipated successful employment trends (Blackford 29). She commented that religious preferences were “products of the emotions” and that employers were wise to study contemporary national antagonisms (Blackford 29). While other scholars in her era were debating child labor, Blackford stepped into the other corner and argued that age was just a number, for “youthfulness is of the spirit and is not measured by calendars or birthdays” (Blackford 29). She had encountered elderly men who, based on their eyes alone, were more spirited than teenagers (Blackford 42). Employment history correlated with strong job performance (Blackford 30). Blackford encouraged employers to informally assess their applicants on their most and least desirable qualities (Blackford 30). As progressive as this mindset was, Blackford, however, did put forth questionable assertions. For example, husbands were more reliable than bachelors; even single men with large families demonstrated their employability because of their responsibility toward their households (Blackford 30). If a man’s skin inferred an inefficient “eliminative system,” and their skin and lip colors were not indicative of endurance, then they were rejects (Blackford 31-32). Facial symmetry appraised “responsiveness and cultural capacity,” and hair color determined psychological characteristics (Blackford 32). Her worst take, however, was that Black applicants were congruous to brunettes in that both were conservative, economical, and dependable, as opposed to blond white applicants who were speculative, impatient, and diffusive (Blackford 32-33). Blackford was certainly ahead of the employment application game, but her merit was immediately squashed by her shameful bigotry (Blackford 33-37). In 1912, her blank tasked applicants to inform employers about various personal elements. In this post, I will explore the history of the questions concerning age, education, marital status, and nationality, all of which were expected by Blackford, before delving into salary and the equal employment opportunity questions of race, sexual identity, socioeconomic status, criminal status, veteran status, and disability status.

Age:

Even though aging employees began filling out the age query on their employment application blanks in 1912, they had to wait 55 years, when the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 would be passed into law, to file any complaints.

The first Factory Act, passed in England in 1802, mitigated issues with “cleanliness, ventilation, limitation of hours of labour, inspection, and secular and religious education of juveniles,” as well as occupational medical supervision and abstracted minors from excessive labor through education (Dearden 82-83). This crackdown may be why the Evening Post in New York was looking to hire “a small boy, either white or black, from twelve to fifteen years of age, to attend table and to go messages” for an undisclosed purpose or employer in 1802 (New York Evening Post 3). Anyway, this principle was expanded upon in 1833, with the introduction of minimum ages of nine years of age for half-time shifts and thirteen years of age for full-time shifts alongside obligatory medical certificates verifying their ages and physical complexions (Dearden 83). Starting in 1844, minors up to sixteen years of age were to verify this certification within one week from their first day on the floor (Dearden 83; 84). Half-time minor employees ranged from twelve to fourteen years of age while full-time minor employees were thirteen to sixteen (Dearden 84). Male minors under sixteen were barred from producing bricks, salts, mercury mirrors, matches, ground metals, pottery transfers, bichromate processes, lead paint, working with yarn heads, or shunting; female minors were, perhaps justifiably, prohibited from working within an environment infested by lead dust or occupied by brass casting, rubber vulcanization, or electrical accumulator pasting activities (Dearden 85). Upon the passage of the revised Factory Bill of 1877, which strove to be equally “protective of the weak,” British factories affiliated age with physical strength (BMJ 631). Children under sixteen years of age could not work more than a week at a time, or thirteen days in a row if they commuted from three or more miles away (BMJ 631). Those unfit for factory work were placed into unhealthy sweatshop environments, brewing advantageous competition from local sweatshops notwithstanding the law (BMJ 631). Scholars attested that the law should have included a clause requiring sweatshops to additionally screen the fitness of their minor employees in order to respect the law (BMJ 632). Their respective certifying surgeons would distribute new age certifications, compliant with the Elementary Education Act of 1876, for transfers in order to prevent sickly minors from working in factories or sweatshops (BMJ 632). It cost up to a sixpence to request this documentation from a superintendent, or a twopence to ask the school board (BMJ 633).

To coincide with their various other demands, in 1888 the United Labor Party (ULP) advocated for convict labor to be kept within the walls of prisons, more sanitary living conditions, and reduced hours for adults and less labor for minors (Topeka Post 2). By 1891, the New Factory Bill eliminated the need for certifying surgeons as long as “in all cases of employment of children in factories and workshops” under the age of fourteen, “a labour certificate from the school board or local educational authority must be presented showing the date of birth, and that the prescribed standard of the educational code has been passed” (BMJ 1891 591). The authors argued that compulsory education was “proving hurtful to the health of the rising generation” and that medical authorities should be the ones supervising the schools (BMJ 1891 591).

By 1903, as inspired by Great Britain, American scholars pushed for yet more revisions to child employment laws. Massachusetts legislators introduced a bill which proposed a minimum of fourteen years of age for employment, as opposed to ten years of age or no minimum at all (F Kelley 97). However, political sociologist Florence Kelley stated that any attempts to mandate an employment age minimum were futile; birth certificates were unreliable as parents could easily fabricate them (F Kelley 97). This led to states completely barring minors from engaging in any tasks that could have injured them (F Kelley 97). More factories, resonating with the pleas of scholars from decades prior, implemented stricter physical fitness and developmental standards (F Kelley 98). Kelley discouraged children who were under sixteen and weighed 80 pounds or less or could not comprehend the written English language sufficiently from engaging in all forms of employment occurring between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or during any eight sequential hours of the day (F Kelley 98). Parents had to keep their children in school until they were at least fourteen years of age and, under oath, provide their verified ages in an official documented form, as well as a valid school attendance record (F Kelley 99).

The number of New York citizens who ordered documents of age authenticity, primarily birth certificates, vastly increased in 1909 after a law sponsored by the National Child Labor Committee in Washington DC required employers to verify the ages of minors (Minor 127). Applicants could also claim that they have no recorded date of birth or could not produce a document despite a valiant effort being made (Minor 127). Applicants were deemed compliant as long as they could pull out a receipt, followed in rank by evidence of educational progress such as a diploma, as well as passports and baptismal certificates; passports were not the most reliable source of age since people commonly fudged them in order to save money on passage rates (Minor 128). If applicants could produce no such legal documentation, then they were greatly encouraged to take two physicals 90 days after the submission of the application in order to allow time for documentation to arise (Minor 128-129). This requirement discriminated against those who could not afford the fees (Minor 129).

As talks of age requirements flew aflutter, employers sought applicants within oddly specific age brackets. In Ireland in 1873, for example, the Belfast Junction Railway cast for “boys at from seventeen to nineteen” years of age (Dublin Metropolitan Police 41). The average age for nurses applying at various nursing schools by 1879 fell between 21, immature, and 35, obdurate (Eaton Jr. CLVIII). Applicants to mining operations in 1883 also had to be at least 21 years of age, as well as pass an exam with a grade of at least 30% and possess at least two years of prior mining experience (OMJ 175-176). In 1887, the aptly named Esoteric Publishing Company near Boston, Massachusetts scouted agents of “either sex,” but required submission of a date of birth attached to their application (Boston Globe 7). That same year, Hallett and Company in Portland, Maine had already been making fanciful progress by hiring all ages and sexes for unspecified labor for a chromolithographic printing press, promising up to a ludicrous $25 daily (today: $808 daily) (Hallett & Co 2). J.B.A. Sayers asked for nurses between the ages of 25 and 41 years with experience in child management in 1910 (The Age 5), just before Blackford published her application blank. The aftermath of this occupational innovation saw employers such as Clothcraft Shops in Cleveland, Ohio marking age as a classified data point for (Feiss 35). Most early classifieds which outlined birth dates, however, were posted by clairvoyants who should have known better.

In 1894, one author argued that military officers should have been able to suspend their retirements once they reached a certain age threshold in case they felt that they could still contribute to the service or earn honors which took a long time to accumulate (Salt Lake Tribune 4). George Humphry promoted longevity in 1889, stating that senile brains benefitted from “good, earnest, useful employment” (Humphry 24). Even as elderly men felt their physical health and mental capacities waning, they possessed a sense that their wisdom still invited opportunities for them to make a difference in their communities (Humphry 35-36). Longevity resulted from consistent mental and physical exercise; the human body, to Humphry, was molded for the enjoyment of work, which promoted health and tranquility in advanced ages (Humphry 36). He interviewed several centenarians and found that they were still intellectual and athletic (Humphry 37-38).

In 1894, the Board of Education in Brooklyn, New York, advocated for a legislation that would allow male and female teachers to work until they were 60 and 55 years of age respectively before retirement, assuming that they had worked for the district for at least twenty years and within the borders of New York State for thirty years or more (The Brooklyn Citizen 6). A male teacher had to be 35 years of age to work the minimum amount and retire at the average retirement age of 65, but it was trendy for college graduates to start working right away (Brooklyn Citizen 6). At minimum, retirees received $400 per year (today: $14,315,) or an amount equivalent to half of their annual paychecks (The Brooklyn Citizen 6). Similarly, in 1907, more than six thousand school teachers and administrators from the Chicago school districts protested for a revised pension plan which would make pensions much more attainable for those who had deserved them (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). They fought for a system which did not base contributions toward the fund on 1% of salaries earned, which impelled those receiving beefier paychecks to donate more with no additional benefits for at least twenty years, at which point they would have finally received benefits (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). However, discrimination resulting from a longer wait led to male teachers embracing merely 30% of their promised benefit payments from the financially unstable fund, as the trustees were forced to reduce the maximum benefits (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). Naturally, this demoralized new hires to donate toward the fund (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). Generous donations toward the appointed voting committee had amounted to more than $800 (today: $26,200) upon the publication of this article (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). Even the superintendent supported the bill, applauding its equitable treatment of teachers, namely those with physical disabilities, regardless of sex and salary (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). Proposed amendments included a class system segmented quinquennially with fixed contribution amounts which increased based on experience, an explicit pension benefit of $400 per year (today: $13,000) for teachers with twenty-five years of experience or more irrespective of sex, eligibility for disability benefits after fifteen years, refunds for discharged or resigned teachers ineligible for pension benefits, and an updated roster of trustees (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). Obligatory contributions, however, were unconstitutional in their eyes (Chicago Daily Tribune 8).

In 1899, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company fiddled with a pension program designed for employees at least 70 years of age, although anyone 65 years of age or older who was incapacitated after more than 30 years of service was eligible (Atchison Globe 5). Retirees received benefits equivalent to “a fixed per centum of the average regular pay for a specific period immediately preceding retirement” multiplied by their duration of employment in years (Atchison Globe 5). In Buffalo, New York in 1906, the superintendent of police wanted him and his fellow inspectors and captains to receive a pension totalling the sum of 2% of their monthly paychecks per year, after twenty-five years of service at minimum and the provision of disability pension payments to be handled by a board of three surgeons, rather than only one, provided that they received a pension of up to $600 per year (today: about $20,500) after serving for a minimum of twenty-five years (Illustrated Buffalo Express 17). Firefighters wanted to dip into their pension funds after at least twenty-five years of service and proposed benefits for “the superintendent of horses, the clerk of the fire board, and all substitute firemen who may be disabled in the performance of their duty” (Illustrated Buffalo Express 17).

Baldwin: Great Britain in 1908 was combating a rising elderly pauper population with “poor laws” (Baldwin 721). The goal was to “make provisions for parents whose sons fail to support them” (Baldwin 721). Almshouses failed to tackle the malnutrition and disease which affected most paupers, so pensions would not have targeted the major cause of pauperism, but rather only disease, a side effect of pauperism (Baldwin 722). Pensions were designed to reduce the strain on paupers of providing for their families; welfare turned paupers into beggars and effectively worsened their lonely situations and damaged their communities (Baldwin 722). Baldwin argued that pension states attracted outside applicants, thereby, depending on the age threshold, reducing wages for the employees and placing too much weight on those receiving a pension while neglecting other wage earners (Baldwin 723-724). The pension system ravaged wage earners and forced them to clamor for higher salaries, which would have reduced the amount earned by paupers for their pensions and discouraged financially sound saving habits (Baldwin 724).

After 1912, Blackford’s silent influence on employment application blanks resonated into the succeeding decades, not only for the age question but also for those on education, marital status, salary, and nationality. For example, in 1924, desperate impoverished British citizens battled for employment at the new factories which had popped up during the Industrial Revolution, during which there were no protocols concerning employee safety or rights (Cowdrick 16). Since hours were not fixed, workers of any age, including minors, could toil until they collapsed (Cowdrick 16). Worse, these apprentice children were “farmed out to the factory owners by the public authorities, and were forced to labor under conditions little if any above those of slavery” (Cowdrick 16). Richard Owen had enough and openly protested for what would soon become the first of the Factory Laws in England (Cowdrick 17). Even though the United States had ample raw materials to produce its own industrial revolution, skilled labor was sparse; naturally, it would attract these same labor problems down the road (Cowdrick 60-61).

Married women flocked to gainful factory employment in 1929, motivated by the aspect of supplementary income and the autonomy to “walk out on the slightest provocation” (Hartford Courant 65). Despite their eagerness to apply, married women were statistical underdogs, as most firms preferred single women for their youth and vivacity although they became elders at the age of thirty (Hartford Courant 65).

In the 1930s, the Federal Security Agency (FSA) dreamed of a “permanent disability social insurance program” under their Social Security Board, while their close competitor, the Department of Labor (DOL), pondered employment quotas for disabled candidates (Berkowitz 212). In 1936, Congress approved the employment of blind individuals at federal news stands and lunch stands, but this segregated average disabled citizens (Berkowitz 216). The 1950 Census team wanted to gather data on “the number of disabled people of working age, the duration of their disability, their age and sex, and their employment history,” but after some officials worried that this would stir controversy, the FSA compromised and collaborated on one singular disability question for a similar population survey (Berkowitz 213). When the DOL repeated this strategy successfully, the FSA decided not to divulge the population of disabled Americans which they had aggregated from their study, perhaps out of jealousy (Berkowitz 213). 

Education:

Arnold: In 1850, a man named S.G. Arnold dissected the misconception that tax rates were being raised thanks to the Brooklyn Board of Education who, in 1849, had drafted a bill aimed at educating poor minors and preparing them for productive lives (Arnold 1). Arnold was in the midst of a similar predicament with the vote on a free academy designed for the same purpose: the Common Council was overexaggerating the annual expenditures of running the academy in order to detract interest in the measure (Arnold 1). This small institution would collaborate with the Brooklyn public school system to teach trades such as mechanics, hydraulics, and chemistry in order to help students develop impressive educational backgrounds (Arnold 1). Arnold iterated that the school was a worthwhile cause even if few students were realistically pegged to attend it; as it was a gesture of generosity toward the local aspiring professional community, it would also assuage poverty (Arnold 1). Preaching about the impact of intelligence and education on human ingenuity, he concluded that “we should endeavor to ascertain what education has already done for us, and then inquire what it is capable of doing by increased means” (Arnold 1). Furthermore, while human nature was universal, locally excelled education could be scaled globally as it had been doing for centuries (Arnold 1). In cities with smarter populations, more patents were granted and more factories and workshops were erected (Arnold 1). He agreed with abolitionist Horace Mann, who had expressed that public education would eradicate the classism of capitalist monetary and intellectual wealth relegation leaving the remainder of the populace in squalor (Arnold 1). The principal of this academy ought to have only been trained in the focus of the academy and nothing above and beyond, since not every public school could be an elite institution which would effectively push inferior schools to aspire to their level of prowess (Arnold 1). John Eaton Jr contended that the state should have been educating every one of its citizens, including vulnerable disabled individuals and paupers alongside convicts, with occupational activities designed to strengthen them with healthy habits (Eaton Jr. CLXX).

One superintendent from Wisconsin reported to School Journal in 1891 that “modifying or conditioning circumstances” such as sexuality, nationality, religious or political affiliation, and address of residence, ought not to have stood in the way of identifying intelligent, competent educators (School Journal 154). He did warn, though, that as attractive as education salaries were, school boards needed to screen out the riffraff of unqualified candidates (School Journal 154). This principle heeded the sentiments of education commissioner Eaton Jr who, in 1879, had found it disgraceful that school boards spent more of their funding on renovations than educator compensation, even though paying educators greater salaries did not entice them to improve their craft (Eaton Jr LXXX). Some major cities were committing to the cause. For example, in 1894, the Board of Education in Brooklyn, New York, advocated for a legislation permitting male and female teachers to work until they were 60 and 55 years of age respectively before retirement, assuming that they had worked for the district for at least twenty years and within the borders of New York State for at least 30 years (The Brooklyn Citizen 6). A male teacher had to be 35 to work the minimum amount and retire at the average retirement age of 65, but it was trendy for college graduates to start working right away (The Brooklyn Citizen 6). At minimum, retirees received $400 per year (today: $14,315,) or an amount equivalent to half of their annual paychecks (The Brooklyn Citizen 6). William Du Bois wrote in 1900 that the bulk of Black college graduates were entering into a professional landscape unreceptive of their natural talents and abilities, despite a 60% rate of stable employment upon graduation (Du Bois 63). More than half of Black college graduates found employment in education, and the rest became clergymen, physicians, lawyers, federal employees, farmers, artisans, editors, secretaries, and clerks (Du Bois 63). Black graduates were able to hop from one job to another seamlessly to avoid unfulfilling careers (Du Bois 69). Eaton Jr supported efforts to hire “feeble-minded” minors into physically accommodated curricula for mat weaving, brush making, shoe repair, broom making, carpentry, and sewing, among other courses, to rescue them from lives of deficiency (Eaton Jr CLXX). In his time, the Illinois Institution for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb, in Jacksonville, had instructed students in art, farming, gardening, cabinet making, printing, among other courses (Eaton Jr 53). The Iowa College for the Blind in Vinton instructed students in music, cane seating, crocheting, and beadwork among other courses (Eaton Jr 69). At the Pennsylvania Institution for the Instruction of the Blind in Philadelphia, students learned Braille point writing, pin-type printing, and calisthenics (Eaton Jr 207). Eaton Jr, had he still been alive, most definitely would have commended these institutions for their efforts in enlivening disadvantaged populations for the benefit of society. Even prior to this, schools were supportive of disabled students. For instance, in 1857, the New York Institution for the Deaf and Dumb taught courses in trending occupations, such as shoemaking, tailoring, cabinet making, and horticulture (Barnard 356). Meanwhile, academies in Connecticut and Rhode Island rehabilitated juvenile delinquents and matched them with careers or engaged them in social activities that would sway them from committing petty street crimes (Barnard 561-562). Grant Spiro wrote that prisons did not encourage their inmates to form good work habits which accentuated their unique talents (Spiro 24). The seclusion of imprisonment tarnished the mental capacities of parolees and made rehabilitation more grueling for employers and counselors (Spiro 40). It was not necessarily the stigma of being a parolee which prevented them from stable employment opportunities, but rather their lack of education which associated them with unskilled labor (Spiro 24). When vocational rehabilitation was handled by educational facilities and not prisons themselves, noticeable progress was made. It is no secret that Black citizens have always been targets for false criminal accusations. This was one reason why Du Bois saw Black graduate students as instinctual community leaders in the United States, as the enslavement of their ancestors in the slave trade had stymied any former family ties and cultural traditions or customs (Du Bois 65). Of utmost importance to the community was education; it was revolutionary how many Black teachers could now inspire thousands of Black students nationwide to find a valuable purpose in their lives (Du Bois 65).

In 1892, Othniel Nichols addressed that even though more engineering students were tacking technical degrees to their employment applications, most would not become engineers because they were following their passions, not trending career paths (Nichols 6). Scholars proposed that public districts needed to commit to “elementary commercial education” with technical and industrial high schools in collaboration with collegiate courses in commerce (Loos 459). One caveat was that the curricula would have to be carefully separated by difficulty so that high schoolers were not learning advanced accounting which would require mathematical education beyond their caliber (Loos 459). Nichols asserted that in a newly mechanized age of employment, candidates needed to stay with the times by attending technical schools to learn “not only of theory, but of works constructed by older engineers” (Nichols 6). The labor market began favoring educated engineers over victims of “the deteriorating influences of the baser labor organization” (Nichols 6). While students enrolled in technical schools were receiving hollow education, they were being trained in practical concepts sought out by employers while situated within their experimental instructional environment (Hailmann 40). They harnessed skills in coordination which would give them an advantage over competing candidates; handiwork, rather than theoretical memorization, prompted students to refine their judgment and independence (Hailmann 40). At an education conference in 1903, scholars conceded that schools of engineering were the best academic institutions available for training students for the new wave of industry (Loos 458). Chicago, for example, had schools by 1908 which offered bureaus designed for helping students find jobs (Howells 53). Networking opportunities abounded in these bureaus where the clerks were experienced in advertisement writing and therefore gave students a nudge in the right direction as well as references and experience in editorial and ad writing (Howells 53). They prioritized sociology, however, a field in which students made up to $60 USD per month (today that would be equivalent to $2,002 per month and nearly $24,000 per year) (Howells 53) Seasonal employment was another advantage to Chicago institutions (Howells 53). However, engineering could not keep up with the rising demand for entrepreneurial aptitude paired with the familiar mechanical inclination of students from these schools (Loos 458). Wisdom in the field took time to develop with habits such as scribing diligent notes, maintaining tedious records, drawing precise sketches of blueprints to surpass the modern “poor draughtsmen,” executive task management, and immersive experience with accounting and money, so education was a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself (Nichols 6). As theory was secondary to praxis, students had to devote hours to studying manual mechanics; employers were strict about condemning minor mistakes (Nichols 6).

Back in 1907, Connecticut was an attractive business state (Edwards 60). Migrant parents emphasized labor over education for their children to take advantage of prosperity as much as possible, although a faction of migrants did found parochial schools (Edwards 60). These children became functionally illiterate in everything but writing and dictating their names and ages (Edwards 60-61). The Connecticut Board of Education judged their literacy via their ability to decipher and heed the following directive: “Please write on this paper your name, age, date of your last birthday, and the name of the town and country where you were born” (Edwards 61). This test favored illiterate children working in potentially dangerous factory settings (Edwards 61). Dr. Franz Kuypers, a contemporary expert in continuation schools, praised the American education system in 1907 for its inclination toward preparing its students for “further self-culture after school life” (Hailmann 15). American educational establishments were providing pupils with bountiful suggestions on how to develop a renewed sense of culture in an atmosphere of imperfectionism; he was glad that they were learning this in their impressionable period before their minds got inundated with “reactionary tendencies” (Hailmann 34). Connecticut was hitting the mark academically, but vocationally it was still rocky. Any factory worker who appeared to be under the age of sixteen was obligated to go to high school until they could find employment or present a legitimate birth certificate or passport (Edwards 55). The majority of younger children were advised to go to school during the winter so that they could still find the time to help factories as necessary (Edwards 55). Third-grade Polish and Italian migrant children were as educated as the average destitute factory laborer, while fourth-grade migrants ranked between French-Canadian and American children in literacy (Edwards 61). Civilian children needed to graduate from at least the sixth grade in order to leave school; the Middletown superintendent intervened with a special assessment particularly aimed at Italians, the most overrepresented immigrants (Edwards 52). The test was written entirely in Italian and consisted of questions pertaining to arithmetic, geography, and history; even though their educators only required cursory knowledge of the subject matter, they curtailed the difficulty of the test (Edwards 57). Italian parents sent their children to the United States alone to make American money for their families back in Sicily, the island which had discharged the most immigrants to Connecticut, namely Middletown (Edwards 53). They ended up in mills that produced “cotton webbing, enamelware, and hammocks” (Edwards 54).

By 1916, after Blackford contributed to the world of employment with her blank, the business world had drastically evolved, calling for more applicants who had already been trained in the tasks at hand; the lucrative mining business was slacking behind the demand for workers who would benefit the industry with their technical expertise (Willis 3-4). Operators of new mining schools sought men trained with “commercial instincts” in specialized undergraduate courses (Willis 4). These schools wanted “obedient and industrious” workers who understood both the capital and manual ends of the mining industry rather than rigidly intelligent individuals versed in the humanities and sciences (Willis 4). Because of this lapse in judgment, these schools graduated only less than half of their students; these graduates were insufficiently prepared for actual mining as they had been concentrated on specific fields such as assaying or drafting, thereby hindering their flexibility in the mines (Willis 5). Many of them were indeed taught the business side of the mining industry, but only that, to the point where they were only ready to be supervisors (Willis 5).

In 1931, Dr. Channing H Tobias applauded the achievements of Black members of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) (New York Age 1931 7). The YMCA cultivated the spiritual and personal development of Black students in schools nationwide (New York Age 1931 7). The Colored Work Department, a subdivision of the National Council, promoted the YMCA and planned national programs which purported to collaborate with local and state associations to encourage Black employment in various unexplored fields of industry, especially in the southern states (New York Age 1931 7). Apparently it was difficult to fill these areas without the help of philanthropic efforts (New York Age 1931 7). Meanwhile, the NAACP urged universities to develop curricula about business education aimed at Black students (Pittsburgh Courier 13). This must have caused waves, because in 1940, the United States Office of Education declared that discrimination against race and creed were indefensible (Ransom 411). This was in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement, when Black Americans were fighting for their basic human rights, yet women, who had been able to vote since 1920, still faced challenges. However, by 1960, women found it easy to enter the field of high school mathematical education receiving pay equally to their male colleagues, but college education was tougher to break into (Brubaker 21). Since 10% of the American Statistical Association members were women, it was also rudimentary for them to become industrial statistical assistants in laboratories and mathematicians for upper level government agencies, as long as they could prove their worth over men (Brubaker 22). As it was, federal employment opportunities, which could have utilized the technical capabilities, tenacity, and sociality of veteran retirees, were endangered because the complexity of government responsibilities evolved faster than people could handle (McBride 1). These veterans, according to a report conducted by Columbia University, received a better education from military service than they would have, or did, from university enrollment (McBride 4). The range of skills that they learned competed with all of private industry, remarked James L Reynolds, the Assistant Secretary of Labor in 1962, so they were to be regarded as regular civilians who happened to be specially versed in various areas (McBride 5). Recruiters who had been visiting colleges to scout women for jobs in science, mathematics, advertising, accounting, and merchandising among other fields were beginning to scout out Black colleges (Hodges 16). Edward Hodges encouraged Black candidates to get their proper degrees and certifications and apply for jobs which were predominantly white or which they would otherwise overlook due to their perception that they were not qualified enough (Hodges 17). All it took was determination and a review of their true merits to find success in uncharted territories (Hodges 18). Black candidates needed to remember that the new statute would be their ticket to fighting discriminatory practices, although many Black complainants had falsified their cases for one reason or another (Hodges 18).

Marital Status:

In 1857, men believed that female employment led to early marriages (Bray 5). When a couple first thought that they could afford children, they used their income better than did a single man (Bray 4). Simultaneously, when men and women who were not married worked in the same factory, the morality of the floor subsided (Bray 5). Employees were more likely to get married when they thought that their lives would improve, yet when the whole family unit had to work, the family likely got paid less as a whole than did a singular man; the man had to support the whole family with his earnings while the family unit earned a fraction of that sum in total (Bray 4). Husbands feared that their wives would pull liberally from their savings for “dress and casinos” and not spend their time on housekeeping or tending to the offspring, leading to endangering labor practices for her children (Bray 5). Many female watchmakers, however, did contribute to a savings account signed to their husbands (Bray 10). When their wives did not work, irresponsible husbands pocketed most of their earnings and spent it on horse betting and other vices (Bray 10).

Later, in 1871, marriage was a distraction from male employment, according to one columnist. Even if the fiance were also working, she would have been paid so little in comparison to her man during their engagement that it would have been a worthless contribution toward their shared goals (The New Northwest 2). If the engaged man defied the 10% odds of societal expectation to spend much of his hard-earned income on “vain pleasures and amusement” and actually committed to marrying his partner, then he seized back power which his wife had arbitrarily exploited (The New Northwest 2). Either the vanity of the wife or the financial insecurity of the husband caused rifts and separations (The New Northwest 2). This is why the columnist promoted female employment; even if she was occupied in petty busywork, she ought to have been paid equally to her husband because of her responsibility for taking care of the household (The New Northwest 2). When it came to raising children as a couple, women were equipped with neither the legal capacity to mold their boys and girls into equal human beings nor the finances to contribute to the bills as husbands frequently prohibited their wives from having checking accounts (Vallance 183). Vallance dismissed the argument that a family was “an economic unit” due to patriarchal political practices (Vallance 184). This imbalance assured that women were facsimiles of their husbands in ethics and religion, yet opposites in psychological and physical breadth (Vallance 183). One reader, listed as Amerigo, wrote in 1875 that it was still better in their “age of progress” for women to commit to housekeeping duties rather than kick men from their jobs and leave them “out in the cold” (Amerigo 11). The anonymous columnist supported the contemporary suffrage movement, confident that it would quell the qualms of marriage (The New Northwest 2). However, Amerigo believed that women, being the “weaker vessel,” had a greater right to work than did men; men finding jobs that paid more to support a family would reduce the necessity of women in the workforce and spur healthier marriages (Amerigo 11).

According to Charlotte Gilman, it was better for married couples to eschew producing offspring to enhance this industrial partnership, and freedom needed to substitute patriarchy in the family unit in order to nurture a blossoming notion of individual freedom and equality (Gilman 217-218). Marriage was not the same as it had been in the era when standards for maintaining a family had not been so high (Gilman 218). Employment essentially hammered a wedge between husbands and wives who worked in different industries and socialized in their own bubbles (Gilman 219). Even if men were progressive enough to disagree with this inequity, they still suffered “ethically from the immoral atmosphere of the knowledge of the wife’s position” (Vallance 184-185); when their wives found stable employment, it sacrificed their family lives and caused a stressful domino effect (Vallance 187). Women demanded “a marketable career” because they were forced to live in a society which was perpetually against the full potential of their existence (Vallance 175). Zona Vallance pointed out that when couples married for better and for worse, the “worse” side, wherein lay individuality and autonomy, was not nearly as prominent as it ought to have been (Vallance 182). It seems, though, that husbands were increasingly dependent upon their wives to earn enough money, notwithstanding their own help, to support the family by 1884; these men became spectacles of masculinity, especially when their wives were actresses and they themselves were not actors (St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat 7). Husbands confronted their own stereotypes when they married their wives; they were regarded as submissive to the needs of their wives which corroded their professional integrity (Gilman 113). For members of a lower economic class, this codependence roused a deeper passion in husbands to work more diligently for the sake of their families because they had already had to work more to earn less (Gilman 113). Despite this, husbands were obliged to eject their wives from their current professions to assert dominance and therefore avoid this ridicule, despite the attraction and prestige bestowed upon their theatrical wives on the stage (St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat 7). Even when they “pretend[ed] to be business partners of their wives,” society saw through the cracks that they were depending on their wives for income (St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat 7). Vallance claimed that mothers needed more financial recognition not only for their maternity, but also because when they had children, they were raising future consumers into the market (Vallance 190). These men were not the fittest and therefore should not outrank their wives in a world in which male and female animals do not invest so much into sexual dichotomies (Vallance 192). These women desired to keep their matrimony private to upkeep their pseudonymic acts, so in that respect, men were also a hindrance (St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat 7).

In 1902, citing philosopher Immanuel Kant’s conclusion that “a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as means, but must in all his actions be always considered as an end in himself” (Kant 56), Vallance related that American men still viewed women as subordinate beings simply for their sex (Vallance 173). By the turn of the century, younger couples were getting married, and more often than in decades past, because as women entered the workforce, their commercial value increased and they earned more independence (Cvrcek 7). As kindergarten classes gained popularity, children went to school earlier in their lives, leaving women to join clubs or vouch for civic improvements to schools, parks, and roads (Cooley 53). Wives enjoyed more leisure because their husbands were working to the bone while they reaped the rewards of pretty dresses and intellectual socialization; unfortunately, married women saw this as a chance to stop working altogether and therefore stop contributing to their families (Cooley 54). By 1905, unions were flourishing, and families were facing the fact that their wives and mothers would have to enter the workforce in order to keep their family unit together as well as flank the competition of employees vying for promotions (Schroeder 11). The husband had to gauge what allowance he could afford for his wife based on his surplus income and, as the wife focused less on the family and more on work, the husband had to remain on this lucrative trajectory to protect his family from poverty (Schroeder 11). The newfound axiom of “home is where the heart is” began to shed the world of dependent womanhood and normalize husbands maintaining their households as much as their wives (Cooley 57). Human character, according to Vallance, must be both egoistic and altruistic; since men were dismissive of the contributions of women, the world was a depraved landscape rather than a celebration of human achievement and ethical responsibility (Vallance 173). Married women were flagged as “idle and parasitic” because they stayed at home to watch their children and do housework if their maids were not doing so already (Cooley 51). Factories had reappropriated the jobs of both men and women, leaving husbands to both watch the children and work, with their wives finally entering into some occupations which had been previously dominated by men (Cooley 51-52). Unions began to fight for equal pay for women as they recognized that when women were underpaid for their labor, men were too (Cooley 58). Husbands maintained exhausting facades of happy marriages in the midst of worrying about the prosperity of their wives and the cohesion of their families on her shoestring wages in order to avoid subtle discrimination at work (Schroeder 11-12). Some employers mirrored the intentions of the army which were to screen men for their profitability before they could marry because they had to assure the stability of their families (Schroeder 11, 12). Women were employed in local administration, yet possessed little power for themselves, as they were objectified projections of their husbands and could thereby only support politics which would inevitably benefit “the unjust, the tyrannical, and the stupid” (Vallance 183). Although women were “natural educators” who could inspire men to enterprise and improve the world, their treatment by the family unit, and society as a whole, tainted any possible positive motives (Vallance 185). Despite this headway in financial independence for women, discrimination against married women lingered because of the stubborn mindset which insisted that women still had to depend on men for domestication; wives were denied employment as educators simply because they were married (Cooley 55). Women continued to face obstacles when it came to piercing into the professional world because many men in the workforce reminded women of their former place in the kitchen (Cooley 58). For example, in 1908, Muller v Oregon concluded that it was not discriminatory for businesses to sanction the number of hours scheduled to women as long as their employment did not “compromise, and interfere with, their future motherhood” (Cvrcek 6). As more single women found employment, domestic technology improved, and political campaigns protested for rights to suffrage, education, and workplace protections, the marriage rate rose (Cvrcek 27). Employed wives often provided for the family savings account because men could not earn enough to break past even for luxuries (Hartford Courant 65). Wives earned more if not the same amount as their husbands, which may have prompted a decent percentage of divorces from envious men (Hartford Courant 65). Sometimes, the employability of married women depended upon the overtime policies and weekend scheduling of their potential employers; usually, these factors favored single women (Hartford Courant 65). Married women were more punctual, but in general, women tended to stay home longer when there were domestic problems, as their husbands were eager to escape the household (Hartford Courant 65).

Salary:

In 1885, more than two million Americans were unemployed (Powderly 370). Employers filled the floor with less expensive workers, chopping product values (Powderly 370). Unemployed citizens became part of the demand while the supply remained the same, yet wages plummeted because employers treated employees as dispensable (Powderly 370). Humans did not need more products, but rather they wanted the same things more passionately; this meant that manufacturers prioritized labor over the laborers themselves (Powderly 373). Taking into account the cost of providing salaries for producers, plus the cost of the raw materials, the value of products increased while the producers received a mere fraction of their worth; this income was still a fraction of the initial investment (Powderly 372-373). Employers had a goal of making more than what they had invested on their raw materials by raising the margins on the final products (Powderly 373). Still, the employer made more than the value of the product, which Powderly thought should have been represented by the wages of the average worker, and not of the most tenured employer with the greatest paycheck, to mitigate the assumption that employees were complaining arbitrarily when products should have been affordable (Powderly 373). The wealthiest of capitalists started out as humble laborers working to the bone to earn their livings, so it was shocking that they were currently snubbing laborers with that same capacity for success by replacing them with machinery and leaving them to starve and transgress from the law, although they built the foundation upon which the wealthy stood (Oakland Enquirer 8). Ironically, too much employment, rather than the lack thereof, reduced wages for the employed and income for the unemployed, widening the class divide and kindling protests (Powderly 370-371). Powderly also wanted to toss out the misunderstanding that unemployed people did not want to work; contrarily, if they had been given an opportunity to work for eight hours rather than ten, but with an extended break in the middle somewhere, multiplied by a crowd of laborers, an unemployed person would have earned money for their family (Powderly 375). Cousins advocated for staggering schedules, allowing for more laborers to work within the vacancies provided by breaks (Powderly 375). Some years prior, the workday had been defined as one hundred miles in twelve hours; in 1910, workers got paid overtime pro rata (Robbins 544). Workers argued that any tasks done past those allotted hours, such as icing of cars or switching rails, needed to be worth something because their itinerary was ambiguous; they soon got definite compensation for any task performed beyond their daily hours, called “arbitraries” (Robbins 545). Cousins aligned to this philosophy, but, you may wonder, would this schedule change not still have reduced wages since more employees were laboring? Well, employers would search for the “lowest bidder” to sign the employment contract, and in turn, wages would indeed decline, employees would seek cheaper items, employers would want to make back more than their employees were worth, and in the end, thrifty employment standards harmed trade all around (Powderly 376).

Employers could not insinuate that they were only legally obligated to pay their employees a decent wage and that they still had to follow all of their demands without expecting a rebellion from laborers who were tired of belittlement (Oakland Enquirer 8). For example, the Chicago railroad system was constructed in a time of fair competition among the twenty-four lines, before monopolization and corporate greed overtook the operation and tipped the scale of supply and demand toward the large corporation (St. Joseph Gazette 2). In 1894, railroad workers struck because their general managers reduced the wages for laborers on several of the lines in order to equalize the pay distribution for all of the lines; some representatives of each line had complained that they were being underpaid for their participation in the expansion of the railway system (St. Joseph Gazette 2). The managers faced litigation over their formation of this corporation in provocation of their declaration which expressly renounced their ability to form associations or “fix rates for services and wages, nor to force their acceptance nor to battle with strikers” (St. Joseph Gazette 2). The state government of Illinois had not granted them this right in order to protect the constitutional ability for laborers to assemble against totalitarian labor practices (St. Joseph Gazette 2). It seems that management forgot that railroad workers had won an eight-hour day with overtime pay worth time and a half. In 1890, various railroad companies paid their workers in different intervals; by 1910, there would be more of a generalized consensus that railroad workers should be paid by the mile and that each should service one hundred miles of freight within ten hours (Robbins 544). That being said, management retorted that the switchmen were being paid almost too much, which was precisely the inverse of the claim made by the switchmen (St. Joseph Gazette 2). It had the resources and status to hire competitive labor while ignoring the unaffordable dues for their tenants, which did not reflect the lower wages (St. Joseph Gazette 2). One fervent union representative wrote in 1901 that, while it was righteous for capitalists to believe that “more men could be employed regularly at maximum wages, never before paid,” they neglected to account for the rising cost of living counteracting plateauing production costs (Oakland Enquirer 8). They were soon mandated to obey the demands of the United States Strike Commission, select a union representative, and avoid retaliation against employees who had participated in the strikes (St. Joseph Gazette 2). The commission recommended an arbitration and conciliation procedure that would fairly investigate claims and prevent the corporation from discouraging unionization and being opaque about wage reductions (St. Joseph Gazette 2). It was hypocritical for wealthy capitalists to mock unionized laborers fighting for their victory when they recruited their own coalitions with major corporations and associations in their mission to “crush out the life” from the laboring class (Oakland Enquirer 8). By the middle of 1904, it became apparent that unions were succeeding, as the Federal Department of Commerce and Labor reported that employment was upsurging along with wages, while hours were being reduced across the board (Tacoma Daily Ledger 4). Later, engineers, conductors, and trainmen began fighting for days of eight hours rather than ten as wages rose and they foresaw a chance to work less for the same income (Robbins 545). In 1915, the engineering and firefighting sectors collaborated on a movement to add that extra time and a half pay for overtime, and by 1916, railroad companies were asking their committees for additional contingencies (Robbins 546). Published media debated whether this was a battle for better pay or improved working conditions; I suppose that it was a binary matter (Robbins 547). The workers clarified that they were demanding reasonable wages within those eight hours and not just from the overtime pay; management had misconstrued this argument as the workers merely wanting ten hours of pay for eight hours of work (Robbins 547). Morality was no longer the impetus for industry because, according to David Reid, the world of business had mutated from a project of the people into “an instrument of injustice and oppression” (Reid 43). It must have been dystopian, then, that people were being born into a machine wherein they could not live independently without submitting to the desires of corporations and using mass manufactured products, and could only be paid with money withdrawn from their societal funds deposited by employees also dependent on industrialization (Reid 45).

Reid proposed a socialist ideal that citizens needed to be able to publicly own trusts in big industries, such as transit; if people owned the means of production, then they would earn more in wages and poverty would be squashed out by the earnings of the people (Reid 101-102). His plan would filter all of the creative energies of Americans into journeys of self-reliance and self-respect (Reid 159). Reid avowed that his capitalist utopia would revitalize impoverished Americans and motivate them to innovate (Reid 162). The workers pointed out that as the rate of locomotive production increased, they would be more productive in a shorter amount of time (Robbins 547-548). Reid advocated for equal employment opportunities for reasonable salaries thirty-four years before the EEOC was established in 1964 (Reid 43). This is because he considered that people were more obligated than they ever had been to spread their savings into transit and industry (Reid 46). His catch was that people had to be able to invest into their savings to earn dividends from industrial giants (Reid 103). They also had to work efficiently and prepare to invest some of their earnings into their businesses so that they could properly own them and prosper within the socialist ecosystem (Reid 105). Previously unemployed impoverished Americans would be able to leave portions of these upgraded salaries into their annuities or wills for their heirs (Reid 108). This plan would not be complete without an arbitration committee to fix salaries and thus make them fair and equitable for their respective occupations (Reid 109). According to political activist Harry Frederick Ward, the primary culprit for poverty was the unreliability of seasonal employment; those firms hired and laid off hundreds of employees at a time, causing a major socioeconomic imbalance (Ward 30). The right to earn a living was the only certain privilege for the average worker, and once this was acknowledged by society, it would be more benevolent to its impoverished and destitute populations (Ward 32). Ward thought that the country needed to keep their reserves of furloughed and surplus employees actively employed in between full-time positions (Ward 33). At the time, private employment agencies did not have the same government support as industrial farms, causing negligent management of the labor supply and demand of citizens (Ward 32). It was rare for salaries to increase as production costs increased because there was not enough union pressure to organize an effort against this corruption (Moulton 35). Unionized industrial firms found it simpler to increase hourly wages than did average employers who paid in salaries (Moulton 35-36). When production costs rose, employment stabilized and the cost of living became temporarily manageable, yet as soon as that novelty ended and employers attained their limit of scheduled hours per employee, it was objectionable to raise wages (Moulton 36). Contrarily, when prices fell, salaries rose; wages went untouched, yet this was a period when employers could perform layoffs more often (Moulton 37). Social legislation such as the Factory Laws in England transformed notions about industry by flipping industrial progress to benefit and not exploit society; this potential had yet to be met in the United States (Ward 109). Reid thought that the feedback loop of poverty rang forth because people were coaxed into funding a trickle-down economy (Reid 47). Some professions were paid exorbitantly while others were paid paltry salaries; lawyers received salaries of up to $50,000 USD and teachers were paid only one tenth of that at maximum (Reid 47). Reid said that average Americans lived “miserable” lives earning up to $16,000 annually while elites pocketed up to four million dollars annually; this abhorrent gap, still present today, spoke volumes about the hyperindustrialization of American labor and the sacrifice of the common citizen for the benefit of the businesses (Reid 48). Wealth steadily climbed for elitist classes while it had plateaued for decades for laymen (Reid 56). He did not agree that impoverished Americans were lazy drunkards; on the contrary, he praised their frugality and dedication to their jobs (Reid 253). On the other hand, Ward insisted that impoverished societies did not spend money wisely when they got it; its inefficient economic sector negatively affected overall consumption power (Ward 29). This social illness reduced the capacity for wealth and slashed wages as a result (Ward 29). Over time, poverty depleted people of their “habit of industry,” and converted them into maladroit theoretical employees and aloof social individuals (Ward 29).

In 1900, Harris Taylor said that seniority should not affect salary, because a less experienced teacher may be more deserving of a promotion for his more outstanding contributions to educating the youth (Taylor 236). He said that teachers should be humble and take the pay and recognition that they duly deserve for their hard work, be it average or superior (Taylor 237). However, there was always the hotshot who thought that they deserved more, in spite of their flaws in character or diligence, because they were friends with their principal or superintendent and would ultimately be promoted over others who were more commendable (Taylor 237). Men in competition with women at the same job may have dismissed their female colleagues because they had families to take care of with their meager wages, yet these women felt that since they had contributed the same amount of labor, they deserved the same salary (Taylor 237-238). In education, if men demanded a higher salary for work that a woman could have been doing for less, it would not have mattered because the state could only distribute so much for payrolls and inferior and superior districts had an equal share of the pile (Taylor 240). By 1902, women were employed in local administration under the visceral supervision of their husbands (Vallance 183). These women could not guarantee protection for their incomes unless they came into wealth (Vallance 187). It was unfair for trustees to bow down to public opinion before listening to their teachers because if they had already been offering better salaries to attract excellent teachers, male or female, then they would not have had to worry about retaining district quotas to satisfy the state population in the first place (Taylor 240). That was not how it worked, however; competition and public outcry for meeting precedents dictated salaries for teachers (Taylor 241). Laws must satiate the needs of the masses, even if they harm the most vulnerable participants (Taylor 242). Historically, underdogs had pushed through to the top because they had a stronger will than the usual favorites (Taylor 241). The new generation of working women did not heed the sexist warnings that they should not work in certain areas because now “brains count for more than sex” (Taylor 239). Around this time, unions began to fight for equitable salaries for men and women regardless of the reactionary protests of men (Cooley 58). As early as 1867, some brave employers believed that since most unions detested women in the same workforce as men, union leaders disliked that women were being paid less than men in their respective professions (King 460-461). As it stood, women were improperly trained in professions so that their employers could not justify paying them the same amount as men (King 462). For whichever professions had an open spot, women “were always ready and willing to undermine each other for a small advance in wages” (King 462). Despite that, there was no discernible demarcation of the salaries received by wives and mothers from the “industrial and capital income” of a business and its horde of husbands, for their family funds (Vallance 188). Even so, women offered to do the same amount of work for less money because they were less costly to hire and men did not theoretically understand that women could work in the same positions as them (Taylor 239). In order to compensate for this shift, employees pared male wages and kept female wages the same because if the wages were equalized, then less women would have been employable (Taylor 239). It was a relic of financial wisdom to keep salaries stagnant in the erratic market; it was much more difficult to lower wages after they had been previously raised than to either stabilize them or continually reduce them (Moulton 35). Harold Moulton clarified, however, that many businesses legitimately could not raise wages as doing so would conflict with the fluctuation of fixed investments in the market (Moulton 35). This is why they opted to give bonuses to their employees, especially the ones situated the closest to the subsistence line, as an illusory raise when prices increased, which could just as easily be deftly revoked (Moulton 36). Moulton suggested that while investment in the stock market was wise, as original investments rose along with the value of the shares, not enough people who could have benefitted from that were versed in the stock market (Moulton 37).

In the education scene, women worked to push men out of positions that women could just as easily have filled in order to quench their idle boredom (Taylor 239). In doing so, women did indeed deplete the salaries of fellow employees (Taylor 240) in honor of the efforts of the International Typographical Union (ITU) who, decades earlier, had fought for women to receive equitable pay for equal work in the field (King 461). They hoped to set a better example than other unionized establishments which blatantly discriminated against women while non-union firms openly welcomed them (King 462). In 1868, a typographical union with a membership of fifty women was approved and assisted the male union in their strike for more female employment rights (King 461). In 1869, they won themselves a statute declaring that women could form unions in any city or otherwise join subordinate unions (King 461). By 1872, subordinate unions were to treat women equally to men in all union matters, although for many years, they seemed quite reluctant to do so (King 462). By 1886, the ITU requested funding from the government whenever a subordinate union began its fight for workdays of eight rather than nine hours in order to assure higher wages (King 472). In 1887, politicians demanded the ITU to stop differentiating women from men on their union documentation and pay women equally at the risk of hefty fines and revocation of its charter altogether (King 463-464). Major cities did not follow through because, strangely, they feared that soon the equality would crumble to justify the imbalance of the payroll (King 464). Arthur Twining Hadley, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, found that stores which prioritized credit transactions were also guilty of factorizing their great financial debts and paying their clerks on a monthly basis; therefore, by way of association, monthly pay cycles were intolerable (Edwards 125). Monthly pay was the standard for industries littered with women and children because they were adamant about scheduling long hours and retaining child labor (Edwards 125). While there was a quiet campaign for weekly paychecks according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Edwards 124), Hadley was impatient for the influence of public opinion and longed to mandate certain criteria to facilitate progress (Edwards 127). Hadley only allowed, against the viability of weekly pay cycles, the exception of piecework gigs for which payment was expected more frequently (Edwards 126). He added that weekly paychecks did indeed cost more for payroll executives as they had to upkeep a larger cash reserve (Edwards 126). This slight dip in wages was counterbalanced “by the increased purchasing power under the cash system” (Edwards 132). According to Hadley, the weekly pay cycle especially benefitted the breadwinners of families who were scrounging for any means to save money and the women who had been most oppressed by the credit system (Edwards 126). Since wives were commonly the breadwinner to supplement the inadequacy of their husbands, and often earned the same amount, if not more, than they did, they ironically became victims of the weekly paycheck expense (Hartford Courant 65). The credit system developed out of necessity because so many customers did not possess cash to pay for products (Edwards 124). Stores which ran on credit systems habitually charged more for their products than those who accepted cash (Edwards 125). Hadley desired to coax storekeepers into charging customers cash only while rendering the credit system an inexpedient means of revenue (Edwards 127). A coinciding abolition of wage assignment and factorization, said Hadley, would emphasize the constitutionality of the measure and attract state governments toward enacting it gradually throughout the nation so as to avoid abrupt enforcement and major conflict from storekeepers nationwide (Edwards 128). Alba Edwards disagreed with Hadley on the grounds that this measure would have stirred an influx of company stores which catered propaganda and limited industrial resources to their employees; it would have been better to allow employees to strike for these revisions despite the danger of retaliation by employers (Edwards 129). Regardless, in 1886, the Democratic party pledged support for a bill which included weekly payment cycles and it got passed into law the following year (Edwards 129). The law enumerated that corporate employers were to fully pay their employees for “all wages earned and unpaid up to the eighth day preceding the day of payment” (Edwards 129). The fine for violating this law totalled $50 (today: more than $1600) (Edwards 130). Many corporations tried to skirt the law by surveying their employees and only paying weekly those who had approved of it, but further investigation foiled their pretense that employees typically did not want to be paid weekly (Edwards 131).

Meanwhile, society would identify that mothers needed more financial recognition because their children would be future consumers in the market (Vallance 190). Suitably, female employees at Clothcraft Shops, for example, frequently found themselves distributing most of their wages to their husbands or head of their family, but the firm, as of 1916, was investigating these cases (Feiss 34). By 1918, the United States Railroad Administration would found a committee for female employees “to insure fair treatment and wages and suitable working conditions” for them (Monthly Labor Review 209). The majority of female railroad employees worked in clerical, custodial, and coaching positions despite their railroad setting (Monthly Labor Review 209). Most worked at least sixty hours per week during the daytime, several having no days off (Monthly Labor Review 210-211). When they did work at night, they were not always under safe conditions (Monthly Labor Review 211). They were barred from working as truckers or calling crew members to wake them for their shifts (Monthly Labor Review 211). The director general proclaimed that they were paid equally to male laborers, but he provided no explicit details (Monthly Labor Review 211). I found no clear indication about their attitude toward married women, but most firms preferred single women for their youth and vivacity, fearing that aging wives would preoccupy themselves with domestic duties or leak insider secrets or intelligence to their husbands and ruin deal negotiations (Hartford Courant 65). Several believed, however, that wives were more principled than were single women because they were saving for the next kitchen appliance (Hartford Courant 65). In the unlikely event that these women did get charged with some kind of financial crime, there was a school of thought claiming that contractual convict labor conflicted with the interests of convict rehabilitation, as ostensibly, contractors only served to make prisoners suffer in order to make the most of their investment (Edwards 234). Despite this, contractors permissibly competed with the state to profit from high prices (Edwards 241). Without the supervision of guards over the contractor, the warden could not place prisoners in their respective industries because of the tantalizing contractual agreement (Edwards 236). Rather than honing a craft that they could have utilized in the free labor market upon release, prisoners were told to produce common imports without the counterbalance of free competition (Edwards 236). Most convict laborers were unskilled and expensive to train, yet contractors were incentivized to keep them consistently employed for upwards of five years to compensate for their expense, regardless of the condition of trade in the outside market (Edwards 242). Edwards thought that convicts needed to be able to support themselves with productive labor practices in unsubsidized competition with the free market so as to retain their humanity; the proportion of competitors ought to have been proportional by industrial demand within an array of large industries, with gradual transitions among areas (Edwards 237-238). Meanwhile, the piece-price system authorized state officials rather than contractors to manage convicts; they prioritized rehabilitation and skill development over profit (Edwards 246).

Surprisingly not in response to Blackford’s racist ideologies, numerous race riot outbreaks occurred during the 1910s, most of them resulting from vitriolic altercations concerning unionization (Donald 438-439). Meanwhile, due to severe prejudicial policies, Black employees were prohibited from participation in unions, especially those in the northern United States which had been staples of their economy; this pigeonholed Black citizens into unskilled labor at reduced pay scales (Donald 440). When Black protesters did attempt to unionize, local white unions strongly opposed them; since federal councils did not have full jurisdiction over local unions, discrimination metastasized (Donald 440). Decades later, Black workers were still given the short end of the stick. A representative of the NAACP outlined in a 1935 speech that Black workers living in states with the densest populations of Black citizens received paltry monthly wages of up to $21 (today: $471 per month) under the Works Relief Act (WRA,) which was “far below the level of decent subsistence” even during the Great Depression (Pittsburgh Courier 13). The collapse of the cotton plantation market, the dissolution of the Southern credit system, and political negligence in the wake of systemic racism contributed to the financial harm of not only Black Americans but also of white Americans mature enough to not be racist (Pittsburgh Courier 13). The representative advocated for business networks incorporating more racially diverse contacts for the benefit of all races and proportional inclusion of Black agents in future WRA projects (Pittsburgh Courier 13). The racial equation prolonged deep into the 1980s, long after the Civil Rights movement refreshed racial relations in the United States. Concerning the segregation of minorities into jobs with meager paychecks, it was not a battle of ethnicities, but rather ethnicities of a lower economic class butting heads with distinguished members of higher classes (Olzak 188). This, in turn, could have pitted low class migrants against prestigious migrants (Olzak 191). Outside of protecting themselves from native laborers, migrants competed against their own ethnicities for political and economical influence (Olzak 189). As Black Americans now moved to industrial centers for employment, they dug themselves into that same hole, thus forming a racial bond ripe for protest (Olzak 189, 190). As the ethnic population surged, economic contraction, predating recessions, heightened competition for employment by reducing job opportunities, splintering the labor market into two ethnic groups demanding different salaries (Olzak 191). Rewards for certain economically disadvantaged ethnic minorities further brewed envy and competition (Olzak 192).

Nationality and Languages:

Unions blew up after 1863, with more than thirty forming between 1873 and 1886 (Schaffner 48-49). Meanwhile in New York, the United Garment Workers union found it challenging to unionize members of different nationalities, so their efforts fell through (Schaffner 94). This may be because of the divisive relationship between the United States government and immigrants. No matter what may be evident about America’s history of racism, the country was literally founded by immigrants and has a soft spot for treating them decently. Castle Garden was the first immigration fort in the United States, predating Ellis Island by almost forty years (National Park Service). Irish immigrants were greeted with “temporary accommodations suitable to their requirements” and, with the proper funds, national rail transportation (Byrne 30). Ward’s Island housed ill immigrants along with solitary immigrants who sought employment (Byrne 30). Despite the hospitality, many industries in the 1870s began to push for a federal immigration program to replace the New York program that treated immigrants like human beings, but Byrne warned of the rampant “degradation and general demoralization, not only of immigrants, but also of those who would have lived by cheating and deceiving them” that would come with a takeover from the New York Commission of Immigration (Byrne 31-32). An estimated influx of almost eight million insightful and productive immigrants would cause the gross national wealth to jump to a bountiful $6.2 billion (today: $157.5 billion USD) (Emporia News 1). They constructed railroads and canals and irrigated inexpensive swaths of farmland to bolster the American necessities of food and travel, cementing the inscrutability of the country (Emporia News 1). According to Vernon Seaman, an American ambassador to China as of the 1870s, white Americans were regarded respectfully in China while white Americans likewise treated Chinese merchants who had emigrated to the United States, not to be conflated with Chinese missionaries, who took more concerted risks (The Daily Bee 1). Reynolds thought that not all Chinese immigrants were recalcitrant gamblers high on opiates because many were “reputable, intelligent merchants devoting themselves strictly to business” who could actually help law enforcement screen out the baddies (Reynolds 152-153). Judge Robert Francis Peckham testified that the sons of his Chinese wool mill employees in California were dependable because their parents diligently raised them; this observation stemmed from the convention that Chinese immigrants were natural educators (The Daily Bee 1). Peckham further cited this stereotype as justification for paying $5 more per month (today: almost $144 per month) to acquire white American workers than to acquire Chinese immigrants (The Daily Bee 1).

White workers were more valuable, yet being Anglo-Saxon was overrated. Samuel Loomis wrote that regardless of whether immigrants came from Ireland, Germany, Poland, Italy, or the Bohemian region of what is currently part of Czechia, patriotism defined their American identities (Loomis 68). Despite that, the overarching philosophy was that immigrants had to act as American as possible in order to be regarded equally. Anthracite mining had been problematic since prior to 1904, when an article came out depicting the challenges of supervising miners from twenty-six nationalities in one industry (Wilkes-Barre Times 13). Immigrants outnumbered natives in the mines, but management did not have the wisdom to connect their training in the Slavic region to their current work in the United States (Wilkes-Barre Times 13). For another example, in Pittsburgh in 1909, the mining district mostly employed people of a Slavic nationality, yet the quality of work and communication in the mines faltered as a result of their language barrier, which paired with their “ignorance of industrial conditions” in order to create a dysfunctional work environment (Leiserson 93-94). While this disconnect did not hinder their stellar productivity in the mines, it did tarnish the relationship between the Slavic miners and Caucasian or Anglo-Saxon miners who painted them as an “irritating and demoralizing” factor because they tended to receive higher wages despite their social disruption (Wilkes-Barre Times 13). The “lack of intelligence” forced the mining companies to use more machinery than manpower, which apparently was a fault and not a benefit (Leiserson 94). This is in spite of the Pittsburgh union translating their policies into the Slavic languages and lowering the fees for Slavic miners; once they became fully versed about the Pittsburgh union conditions and subsequently learned about union conditions in western states, most transferred over there (Leiserson 94).

This precarious relationship between American managers and immigrant laborers extended to other nationalities; the theme was that while they were cheap labor, immigrants were still subordinates. Irish immigrants were practiced in agriculture; to abandon that would invite poverty and unemployment (Byrne 33). Land was abundant and inspired agricultural independence on wisely purchased land, as long as immigrants assimilated to American techniques of agriculture, mechanics, carpentry, and masonry (Byrne 34, 35). Byrne attested that Irish immigrants were proficient at burning through their savings, thereby squandering their chances of independence, yet the apparent solution of the Christian virtue of “courageous and manly self-denial,” along with investing in precious farmland, assured that they would eradicate that vice (Byrne 35, 38). He added that Irish and Chinese immigrants could collaboratively overtake white laborers and fortify the country even more since both were less expensive for capitalists to afford, yet Chinese immigrants were principally kinder and less prone to vices (The Daily Bee 1). James H Wilson estimated that, from 1898, it was going to take China half a century to level with the economic powerhouses of Europe and the United States, who had established themselves as commercial empires in China (JH Wilson 132; 135). While China resorted to spending precious metals on American and European goods for development, they excelled in their exports; they were focused on building factories, excavating quarries and mines, raising employee wages, and therefore improving the overall quality of Chinese life (JH Wilson 132). In Wilson’s opinion, China heralded the American commercial influence on the growth of their empire, but they were still ostracized from the world because they could not defend themselves properly as of yet (JH Wilson 136-137). Theodore Roosevelt in 1905 expressed his anger at the mistreatment of Chinese laborers in the United States; they slaved over American railroads while Americans were helping China grow as an economical figure (Reynolds 144). He said that it was a “grave injustice” to dismiss those who were not “coolies,” or unskilled laborers, who were looking for work on the railroads because China was still developing its economy; all other Chinese immigrants, in his mind, were exempt from this exclusion as they had greater potential to be professionals (Reynolds 144). Regardless of how Americans exploited them, Chinese laborers were a necessary part of American culture. That being said, Native Chinese citizens boycotted American products due to this racist treatment of their emigrating counterparts (Reynolds 145). Even Chinese-American merchants supported the exclusion of “coolies” because they, with their burdensome business practices, tarnished their budding financial reputation in the United States (Reynolds 146).

Religious affiliation, said Loomis, was an obstacle which united impoverished and wealthy immigrants into one population and created a social blend that challenged the superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant race so definitive of the contemporary United States (Loomis 74). Chinese immigrants sustained the Californian fruit business as well, in the opinion of a Presbyterian reverend who clarified that he gained more profit from the fruit industry with the employment of Chinese immigrants than from white laborers due to the declining cost of Chinese labor (The Daily Bee 1). In 1871, the United States government approximated an English-speaking population of more than four million people, which confirmed the dominance of the language (Emporia News 1). One professor observed that there were people who spoke English and did not speak English, and white Anglo-Saxon American heritage was littered with ancestry from diverse cultures while Americans were proud of their simultaneous independence from Great Britain and their claim over the expansive influence of British history and culture (Loomis 67). Immigrants were valued in the market at $800 each (today: more than $20,000), boasting a formidable value (Emporia News 1). Concentrated work forces renewed a concept of “solidarity of labor,” especially for societies such as the Knights of Labor (Schaffner 47). The number of employed American women over the age of ten years old would double between 1870 and 1900, especially in “occupations which particularly appeal to the more intelligent and ambitious” such as trade and transportation services (Weatherly 743). However, in the meantime, America did not handle ethnicity and nationality in as sensitive a manner despite how in ethnological history, language and religion were secondary qualities when defining one’s nationality (Fiamingo 395). Nationalities are amalgamations of various races; for example, the French nationality was constructed from at least six racial backgrounds (Fiamingo 397). G Fiamingo included a counterexample via which he described contemporary Italian laborers residing in France who did not bother to learn French; capital reigned supreme as the Italian and French laborers competed to depreciate each other’s wages (Fiamingo 395). However, the French saw Italians as peons who could work for a pittance (Fiamingo 396). Fiamingo also quoted Professor Thomas Huxley who claimed that the superiority and inferiority of races were not transmitted by language barriers but rather “with blood;” slaves were not differentiated for their language as they spoke English like their owners did (Fiamingo 396).

Finally, in 1874, the Constitution of the Sovereigns of Industry made a jubilant proclamation that laborers would be treated fairly and make right the evils committed in the past by employers, with no regard for “class, sex, creed, race, or nationality” (Schaffner 47-48). Margaret Schaffner did not agree that collective bargaining was the proper route for industrial progress after the Civil War since she thought that factions who leaned toward the opposing philosophy of trade autonomy had stronger organizations (Schaffner 48). Labor organizations were apprehensive about hiring too many women, for instance, because that would mean that less men would be working and more children would be endangered (Weatherly 746), although men welcomed women to perform their “menial labor” for them (Livermore 133). Male wages were already decreasing in districts wherein women were halfheartedly working and raising their children at the same time (Weatherly 747). Livermore argued that women needed to be employed in order to be considered “well educated,” yet the competition for these jobs inevitably curtailed wages for their cheap labor (Livermore 84-85). The financial sacrifice of hiring Chinese immigrants over white citizens insured the energy of commercial development of California in competition with eastern states; Peckham anticipated that hiring Chinese immigrants to indulge progressively cheaper labor practices in rising industry sectors would keep Californian commerce competitive (The Daily Bee 1). He believed that lower wages ensured greater American prosperity and value in its exports (The Daily Bee 1). Despite its infatuation with the convenience of Chinese immigrant labor for American capital, the legislature of California in 1880 ruled that Chinese and Mongolian labor were prohibited (San Francisco Chronicle 4). In response to this law, two judges testified that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which only twenty-two years prior had granted citizenship to all people born or naturalized within the United States and equally protected immigrants under all American laws, along with several ancillary provisions (San Francisco Chronicle 4).

In 1886, the Chicago Tribune interviewed native Chicago Italians about the new wave of “illiterate and unwashed Italians who live[d] in the dago dives of the Second Ward,” primarily hailing from localities bordering the Apennine mountain range, the spinal cord of the Italian peninsula (Chicago Tribune [March 1886] 9). The amount of immigrants who entered the American land mass in 1886 was on average twice that of the prior decade (Chicago Tribune [March 1886] 9). Members of this impecunious legion were fleeing diseased soil and crops, deforestation, exorbitant taxation, and rural agricultural distress caused, ironically, by competition from the United States (Chicago Tribune [March 1886] 9). When they were not street beggars, Italian immigrants founded saloons, wineries, and restaurants, and became theatrical musicians (Chicago Tribune [March 1886] 9). In Italy, women were harshly employed in the livestock industry, vineyard theft was prevalent, education was underwhelming, and housing was uncomfortable (Chicago Tribune [March 1886] 9). Certainly, Italian immigrant labor was economical and employers underpaid them for their exertions (Chicago Tribune [March 1886] 9). Peckham would have agreed that such a forfeiture was beneficial for the market. Worlds apart, Italian families dreamed of a better life fueled by American wages and shipped their young children alone to endure the harsh reality of factory work, such as weaving cotton webbing, crafting enamelware, and stitching hammocks (Edwards 54). Many interviewees presumed that the Neapolitan immigrants, on the other hand, were uncouth because they did not assimilate well to American customs of cleanliness and communication and therefore did not deserve such luxury (Chicago Tribune [March 1886] 9). Loomis wrote that later immigrant generations were more genteel than their ignoble ancestors (Loomis 68).

The majority of manual laborers were immigrants, and it was rare to find them working in professional industries (Loomis 73). However, all of this fuss about foreign labor discounted the pleas of native Americans— Native Americans, that is. In 1888, President Grover Cleveland proposed that employers should prioritize Native Americans living on designated reservations who were sufficiently qualified for being “farmers, artisans, and laborers” as established in Article III of an agreement among various tribes in 1886 (Cleveland 15). He distributed funds to the Native Americans of three agencies, Fort Peck, Fort Belknap, and Blackfeet, for livestock, foodstuffs, clothing, tools, education, medication, and employment (Cleveland 5). For the Cœur d’Alene tribe, Cleveland funded a steam saw, a grist mill, and the employment of an engineer and a miller alongside the other indispensables; he promised that the country would additionally ship in “at its own expense, a competent physician, blacksmith, and carpenter” (Cleveland 9). Cleveland was confident that Native Americans could grasp new concepts quickly upon training (Cleveland 40). One Native American, Red Door, insisted that half-breeds needed to receive equal pay for their work which was being stolen by white men marrying their women (Cleveland 29).

I promise that not everything was bad. By 1906, it was advantageous for the Marines to employ sailors of various nationalities after receiving subsidies so that they could properly interact with foreign countries by enacting networks of trade and stimulating industrialization (McVey 374; 388). Some fleets, such as those from France, integrated quotas for sailors of different nationalities (McVey 374). Four years after Blackford published her own employment application form in 1912, one company, the Clothcraft Shops, listed the following candidate qualities as the most important to include on an application blank: name, address, date and place of birth, information pertaining to their parents, languages spoken, educational background, marital status, their family size, their distribution of wages to support said family, and employment history (Feiss 31). This firm preferred English speakers (Feiss 34) because it was based in Cleveland, Ohio. If they were to have hired a foreign-born employee, then they would have been required to attend at least one of the occupational English courses held at the factory in order to negate the employee’s conception that their employment would only be temporary (Feiss 34). The universality of language on their factory floor was vital for satisfying quality standards and achieving “that state of friendly feeling which is the basis of cooperation and spirit” (Feiss 34). W.A. Waterbury concluded that nationality had no place in sales because, while a “homogeneous body of men” was ideal for communicating responsibilities and successes, unity of purpose was consequential (Macbain 4). Salespeople had their individual weaknesses and strengths, but one person did not make an impression on the whole group with their failures; this just signaled that they needed a transfer to a different sector (Macbain 4). In the same book, W.G. Chamberlain suggested that nationality may have helped to create a bond between salesperson and customer (Macbain 116). The country was biased toward foreign immigrants because immigrants wrote the Constitution, but still poorly treated Black citizens who were, lest we forget, stolen from the African continent for slave labor. However, war and industrialization forced white Americans to give in. By 1918, a modernized white population developed a stricter working class attitude and began to win back their market value in most industries outside of domestic service (Johnson 129). During World War I, the United States began to embargo record immigration from eastern and southern countries in Europe, allowing an unprecedented rise in Black employment in the northern states, where American industry was the most developed (Johnson 131). Black labor had been strained due to immigration in the northern states and a revitalization of white labor in the southern states (Johnson 129). Despite the surge in employment, Black employees were not populous enough in the northern states for them to impact union membership (Johnson 129). Early immigration had fueled a healthy rise in population and wealth, but eventually led to further acts of segregation, such as forcing Irish and Chinese immigrants to build American railroads (Cowdrick 62-63). As time went on, Eastern European immigrants decided that they did not want to become citizens anyway (Cowdrick 65). Upon a labor shortage from the aftermath of a recession, Congress still did not relax these restrictions (Cowdrick 65). Factory managers and employers resorted to making their employees do more while dealing with new, fast machinery that could ironically replace hordes of employees (Cowdrick 66). By 1923, the amount of skilled American Black employees nationally increased to an exceptional 34%; this included unionized Black employees (Johnson 131). Mexican immigrants would also fill vacant industrial positions, but this had a minor effect on the new battle of labor supply versus technological innovation (Cowdrick 66-67). By 1924, the question of the living wage sparked conversations between labor organizations who wanted to dole out fair wages above the subsistence line and statisticians who rebutted that a universal minimum wage would throw the country into massive debt (Cowdrick 316). While there was no solid answer at the time, this ordeal would resolve itself via “increased production which [would] furnish more goods for distribution to laborer, to employer, and to the public” (Cowdrick 317).

MORE IN PART B

Works Cited

Ayres, Ian, and Jennifer Gerarda Brown. “Mark(et)ing Nondiscrimination: Privatizing ENDA with a Certification Mark.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 104, no. 7, June 2006, pp. 1639–1712, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40041484.

Baker, Helen. “Industry’s Plans for Absorbing the Disabled Veteran.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 239, no. The Disabled Veteran, May 1945, pp. 128–134, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1024732.

Baldwin, F Spencer. “Old Age Pension Schemes: A Criticism and a Program.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 24, no. 4, Aug. 1910, pp. 713–742, https://doi.org/10.2307/1883493.

Barnard, Henry. The American Journal of Education. Vol. 3, F.C. Brownell, 1857. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED623951.

Berkowitz, Edward D. “Domestic Politics and International Expertise in the History of American Disability Policy.” The Milbank Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 2, 1989, pp. 195–227. Disability Policy: Restoring Socioeconomic Independence, https://doi.org/10.2307/3350240.

Best, Ethel L. The Change from Manual to Dial Operation in the Telephone Industry. United States Government Printing Office, 1933. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Change_from_Manual_to_Dial_Operation/oJjVIyNbdqcC?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Betts, Lee John, and United States Office of Education. Veterans on Campus: A Handbook for Programs, Services, Staffing, and Assistance, American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, 1973, pp. Iii–71. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED083984.

Blackford, Katherine Melvina Huntsinger. Employers’ Manual: Instructions to Employment Supervisors and Other Executives in the Use of the Blackford Employment Plan. Emerson Company, 1912. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Employers_Manual/KXapCk5VkAcC?hl=en&gbpv=0&kptab=overview.

Bray, Charles. “The Industrial Employment of Women: Being a Comparison Between the Condition of the People in the Watch Trade in Coventry, in Which Women are Not Employed; and the People in the Ribbon Trade, in Which They Are Employed.” British Association for the Advancement of Social Science, October 1857, pp. 3-18, Birmingham, England. Speech. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Industrial_Employment_of_Women_Being/ue4UYrOWyNwC?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Brook, Dan, et al. “Is Sexual Orientation Immutable?: Presenting Scientific Evidence in Litigation to Gain Strict Scrutiny.” Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol. 27, no. 2, 1999, pp. 279–564, https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol27/iss2/4/.

Brubaker, Arlen David. “Career Opportunities in Mathematics.” Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma State University, 1960, pp. Ii–32. https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/31960/Thesis-1960R-B886c.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Byrne, Stephen. Irish Emigration to the United States: What It Has Been, and What It Is: Facts and Reflections Especially Addressed to Irish People Intending to Emigrate from Their Native Land; and to Those Living in the Large Cities of Great Britain and of the United States. The Catholic Publication Society, 1873. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Irish_Emigration_to_the_United_States_wh/djZOAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Carr, Dinard S. “The Problem of the Chronically Ill in Louisville, Kentucky, 1946.” University of Louisville, ThinkIR: The University of Louisville’s Institutional Repository, 1946, pp. Ii–247. https://core.ac.uk/works/46383665.

“Certified English Managers.” Ohio Mining Journal, vol. 1, no. 4, 15 Aug. 1883, pp. 175–183, https://core.ac.uk/works/51772019.

Chamberlin, Everett. The Struggle of ’72: The Issues and Candidates of the Present Political Campaign. Union Publishing Company, 1872.

Chapin, Caroline B. “Settlement Work Among Colored People.” Philanthropy, Charities and Social Problems, Current Political Problems ed., vol. 21, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1903, pp. 184–185. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1009932.

Cleveland, Stephen Grover, and United States Secretary of the Interior. A Communication from the Secretary of the Interior, with Accompanying Papers, Relating to the Reduction of Indian Reservations, University of Oklahoma College of Law, 1888, pp. 1–77. https://core.ac.uk/works/63233980.

Coffey, Carolyn E. “Battling Gender Orthodoxy: Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Expression in the Courts and the Legislatures.” The City University of New York Law Review, vol. 7, no. 1, spring 2004, pp. 161–194, https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr/vol7/iss1/6/.

Cooley, Winnifred Harper. The New Womanhood. Broadway Publishing Company, 1904. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_New_Womanhood/7uXFq7pwA90C?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Cousins, Norman. “Will Women Lose Their Jobs?” Current History (1916-1940), vol. 51, no. 1, Sept. 1939, pp. 14-15; 17-18; 63, https://www.jstor.org/stable/45335698.

Cowdrick, Edward Sheffield. Manpower in Industry. Henry Holt and Company, 1924. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Manpower_in_Industry/wdxCAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Cvrcek, Tomas. “Mothers, Wives, and Workers: The Dynamics of White Fertility, Marriage, and Women’s Labor Supply in the United States 1870-1930.” Vanderbilt University, 2006, pp. 1–44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265106780_Mothers_Wives_and_Workers_The_Dynamics_of_White_Fertility_Marriage_and_Women's_Labor_Supply_in_the_United_States.

Dearden, William Francis. “State Medical Supervision of Factories and Workshops.” Public Health: The Journal of the Society of Medical Officers of Health, edited by George Frederick McCleary, vol. 24, Society of Medical Officers of Health, London, England, 1910, pp. 82–91. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Public_Health/bMoyAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Denson, Samuel Crawford. Our Criminal Criminal Law. Whitaker & Ray-Wiggin Company, 1914. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Our_Criminal_Criminal_Law/3cALAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Donald, Henderson H. “The Effects of the Negro Migration on the North.” The Journal of Negro History, vol. 6, no. 4, Oct. 1921, pp. 434–444, https://doi.org/10.2307/2713653.

Du Bois, William Edward Burghardt, editor. Atlanta University Press, The Fifth Conference for the Study of the Negro Problems, Held at Atlanta University, May 29-30, 1900, vol. 1, 1900, pp. 10–114. https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.35007060.

Eaton Jr., John. Report of the Commissioner of Education for the Year 1879, Part 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1881, p. I–757. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED616973.

Edwards, Alba M. “The Labor Legislation of Connecticut.” Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. 8, no. 3, Aug. 1907, pp. 1–322. 3, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2999934.

“Employment of Women in Petroleum Refineries.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 57, no. 2, Aug. 1943, pp. 197–203, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41817195.

Erickson, Reed, editor. Guidelines for Transsexuals. 2nd ed., Erickson Educational Foundation, 1976. http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/4111.

Evans, Cecilie H. “Transgender Population: Barriers and Adaptions to Employment.” University of Nevada Las Vegas, UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations, 2002, pp. Ii–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/6rt6-3ua0.

Feiss, Richard A. “Personal Relationships as a Basis of Scientific Management.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 65, no. Personnel and Employment Problems in Industrial Management, May 1916, pp. 27–56, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1013557.

Fiamingo, G. “The Conflict of Races, Classes, and Societies.” The Monist, vol. 7, no. 3, Apr. 1897, pp. 380–414, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27897423.

Flaim, Paul O, et al. “Employment and unemployment in 1974.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 98, no. 2, Feb. 1975, pp. 3–14, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41839534.

Flynn, Taylor. “TRANSforming the Debate: Why We Need to Include Transgender Rights in the Struggles for Sex and Sexual Orientation Equality.” Western New England University School of Law, Digital Commons of Western New England University School of Law, 2001, pp. 392–420. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1123803.

“Frequently Asked Questions.” Ellis Island, Part of Statue of Liberty National Monument, NJ, NY, United States Department of the Interior, 20 Sept. 2023, www.nps.gov/elis/faqs.htm#CP_JUMP_853542.

“From Wanderers to Workers: A Survey of Federal and State Employment Rights of the Mentally Ill.” Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 45, no. 3, summer 1982, pp. 41–65, https://doi.org/10.2307/1191242.

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins Stetson. Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. 2nd ed., George H. Ellis, 1898. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Women_and_Economics/Fw4ZKAkaUM0C?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Goldberg, Suzanne B. “On Making Anti-Essentialist and Social Constructionist Arguments in Courts.” Columbia Law School, Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive, 2002, pp. 629–661. https://core.ac.uk/works/68263245.

Graves, Ray. “Reemployment Rights of the Veteran.” Duke Bar Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, Mar. 1951, pp. 75–100, https://doi.org/10.2307/1370813.

Hailmann, William N, and United States Bureau of Education. German Views of American Education, with Particular Reference to Industrial Development, 2nd ed., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1907, pp. 4–55. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542838.

Henderson, Sara Cook, and Doris H Francis, editors. “Workshop for Episcopal Workers for the Deaf.” American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 107, no. 2, Mar. 1962, pp. 232–291, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44394206.

Higgins, Hugh R. “The Changing Composition of the United States Work Force.” Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1963, pp. Iii–53. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA359183.pdf.

Hodges, Edward N. “The Negro’s Future Through Fair Employment Practices.” Negro History Bulletin, vol. 26, no. 1: Special Issue by Detroit Writers, Oct. 1962, pp. 16–18, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44176105.

Hope II, John. “Efforts to Eliminate Racial Discrimination in Industry--With Particular Reference to the South.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 23, no. 3, summer 1954, pp. 262–272. Next Steps in Racial Desegregation in Education, https://doi.org/10.2307/2293223.

Howenstine, Emanuel Jay. “Lessons of World War I.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 238, no. Postwar Jobs for Veterans, Mar. 1945, pp. 180–187, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1025298.

Humphry, George Murray. Old Age: The Results of Information Received Respecting Nearly Nine Hundred Persons Who Had Attained the Age of Eighty Years, Including Seventy-Four Centenarians. Macmillan and Bowes, 1889. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Old_Age/ZR0SAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Johnson, Charles S. “The Changing Economic Status of the Negro.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 140, no. The American Negro, Nov. 1928, pp. 128–137, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1016841.

Kant, Immanuel. “Second Section: Transition from Popular Moral Philosophy to the Metaphysic of Morals.” Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Ethics, translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, 5th ed., Longmans, Green, and Co., London, England, 1916, p. 56.

Keefe, Marjorie Veronica. “The Relation and Application of Integrated Handwork Skills to Occupational Skills for an Advanced Group of Mentally Retarded Boys.” Boston University, Boston University OpenBU, 1945, pp. Ii–168. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/14859.

Kelley, Florence. “An Effective Child-Labor Law: A Program for the Current Decade.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 21, no. Problems in Charities and Corrections, May 1903, pp. 96–103, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1010296.

Kelley, John Drenan. “The Sociology of Stratification: A Theory of the Power Structure of Society.” Louisiana State University, LSU Digital Commons, 1961, pp. Ii–495. https://core.ac.uk/works/63356787.

King, W L Mackenzie. “The International Typographical Union.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 5, no. 4, Sept. 1897, pp. 458–484, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1821011.

Kuharich, Anthony Stephen. “Employment and Occupational Adjustment of Probationers and Parolees.” Loyola University Chicago, Loyola eCommons, 1954, pp. Iii–81. https://core.ac.uk/works/27572072.

Leathers, Anne Lillian. “Principles of Postwar Guidance.” Boston University, Boston University OpenBU, 1944, pp. Iii–151. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/15882.

Leiserson, William M. “Labor Conditions in the Mines of the Pittsburgh District.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 33, no. 2, Mar. 1909, pp. 92–101. Labor and Wages, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1011567.

Levitan, Sar A, and Robert Taggart. “Employment problems of disabled persons.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 100, no. 3, Mar. 1977, pp. 3–13, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41840428.

Livermore, Mary Ashton. What Shall We Do with Our Daughters? Superfluous Women, and Other Lectures. Lee and Shepard, 1883. https://www.google.com/books/edition/What_Shall_We_Do_with_Our_Daughters/oNUrRB1QgY8C?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Long, Jean S. “Problems of Job Placement for Overtime Inmates.” Journal of Correctional Education (1949-1972), vol. 5, no. 3, July 1953, pp. 58–60, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44858726.

Longino, T D. “Can Colored Convicts Be Employed Indoors?; How State Prisoners Should Be Employed.” Philanthropy, Charities and Social Problems, Current Political Problems ed., vol. 21, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1903, pp. 175–177. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1009932.

Loomis, Samuel Lane. Modern Cities and Their Religious Problems. The Baker & Taylor Company, 1887. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Modern_Cities_and_Their_Religious_Proble/rFtbAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Loos, Isaac A. “The Ann Arbor Conference on the Higher Commercial Education.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 11, no. 3, June 1903, pp. 457–466, https://archive.org/download/jstor-1820958/1820958.pdf.

Manning, Caroline. Fluctuation of Employment in the Radio Industry. United States Government Printing Office, 1931. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fluctuation_of_Employment_in_the_Radio_I/dQ_n201yvMkC?hl=en&gbpv=0.

McBride, Donald Bruce. “Military ‘Second Career’ Potential: Employment Opportunities for Retired Military Personnel in Local Governments of the United States.” The Air Power Historian, vol. 12, no. 1, Jan. 1965, pp. 1–28, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44513984.

McVey, Frank L. “Subsidizing Merchant Marines.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 14, no. 6, June 1906, pp. 370–391, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1819699.

Minor, Jeanie V. “Proof-of-Age Records.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 35, Supplement: Child Employing Industries, Mar. 1910, pp. 127–129, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1011403.

Mohler, Henry Calvin. “Convict Labor Policies.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 15, no. 4, Feb. 1925, pp. 530–597, https://doi.org/10.2307/1134523.

Moulton, Harold Glenn. The Financial Organization of Society. 2nd ed., The University of Chicago Press, 1921. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Financial_Organization_of_Society/VJ4LAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Murray, Pauli. “The Right to Equal Opportunity in Employment.” California Law Review, vol. 33, no. 3, Sept. 1945, pp. 388–433, https://doi.org/10.2307/3477304.

Nagi, Saad Z, et al. “Work, Employment, and the Disabled.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 31, no. 1, Jan. 1972, pp. 21–34, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3485573.

Oldham, James C. “Questions of Exclusion and Exception under Title VII-- Sex-Plus and the BFOQ.” Hastings Law Journal, vol. 23, no. 1, Jan. 1971, pp. 55–93, /https://core.ac.uk/works/64687842.

Olzak, Susan. “Causes of Ethnic Conflict and Protest in Urban America, 1877-1889.” Social Science Research, vol. 16, no. 2, June 1987, pp. 185–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(87)90016-0.

Patten Jr, Thomas H. “The Industrial Integration of the Negro.” Phylon, vol. 24, no. 4, winter 1963, pp. 334–352, https://doi.org/10.2307/273372.

Pinsent, Hume. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 10, no. 6, May 1905, pp. 845-856, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2762160.

Powderly, Terence Vincent. “The Army of the Discontented.” The North American Review, vol. 140, no. 341, Apr. 1885, pp. 369–377, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25118479.

“Qualification and Supply of Teachers.” The School Journal, vol. 42, no. 10, 7 Mar. 1891, pp. 145-160, https://archive.org/details/sim_school-journal_1891-03-07_42_10.

Ransom, Leon A. “Combatting Discrimination in the Employment of Negroes in War Industries and Government Agencies.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 12, no. 3, summer 1943, pp. 405–416. The American Negro in World War I and World War II, https://doi.org/10.2307/2293060.

Reid, David Collins. Effective Industrial Reform. Press of the Eagle Printing and Binding Company, 1910. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Effective_Industrial_Reform/jjgoAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Report of the Commissioners Appointed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury to Enquire into the Condition of the Civil Service in Ireland on the Dublin Metropolitan Police: Together with the Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. Alexander Thom, 1873. https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.29941564.

Reynolds, James Bronson. “Enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Law.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 34, no. 2, Sept. 1909, pp. 143–154. Chinese and Japanese in America, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1011221.

Robbins, Edwin Clyde. “The Trainmen’s Eight-Hour Day.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 4, Dec. 1916, pp. 541–557, https://doi.org/10.2307/2141627.

Robinson, Mary. “Woman Workers in Two Wars.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 57, no. 4, Oct. 1943, pp. 650–671, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41817247.

Roper, Elmo. “Discrimination in Industry: Extravagant Injustice.” ILR Review, vol. 5, no. 4, July 1952, pp. 584–592, https://doi.org/10.2307/2519140.

Ruhig, Theodore F, et al, and United States Office of Education. Annual Report of the Commission on Manpower and Full Employment, State of Hawaii, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1972, pp. 1–81. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED060458.

“Safety in Employment of Physically Handicapped Persons.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 77, no. 10, Oct. 1954, pp. 1117–1118, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41831065.

Schaffner, Margaret Anna. The Labor Contract from Individual to Collective Bargaining. 1st ed., vol. 2, University of Wisconsin Madison, 1907.

Schroeder, Theodore. “The Evolution of Marriage Ideals.” The Arena, Dec. 1905, pp. 1–12. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Evolution_of_Marriage_Ideals/N750BxROs68C?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Schwartz, Richard D, and Jerome H Skolnick. “Two Studies of Legal Stigma.” Social Problems, vol. 10, no. 2, autumn 1962, pp. 133–142, https://doi.org/10.2307/799046.

Scott, Walter Dill, and Mary Holmes Stevens Hayes. Science and Common Sense in Working with Men. The Ronald Press Company, 1921. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Science_and_Common_Sense_in_Working_with/RTkJAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

“Significant Decisions in Labor Cases.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 87, no. 4, Apr. 1964, pp. 435–438, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41835616.

Spiro, Grant Philip. “The Parolee and His ‘After-Care’ Problems: An Exploratory Study of Conditions Encountered by Men on Parole Which Impede the Process of Rehabilitation, With Some Applications to After-Care Agencies, British Columbia, 1961.” The University of British Columbia, UBC Theses and Dissertations, 1961, pp. Iii–102. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/39902.

Starr, Michael, and Amy L Strauss. “Sex Stereotyping in Employment: Can the Center Hold?” The Labor Lawyer, vol. 21, no. 3, spring 2006, pp. 213–246, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40862878.

“State Labor Law Developments.” The Labor Lawyer, vol. 6, no. 3, summer 1990, pp. 497–601, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40862094.

“Statistics of Employment of Women and Girls.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58, no. 3, Sept. 1895, pp. 518–528, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2979538.

Taylor, Harris. “The Question of Salary.” American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 45, no. 3, Apr. 1900, pp. 236–243, https://www.jstor.org/stable/44463440.

“The Competition of Convict Labor.” Science, vol. 7, no. 155, 22 Jan. 1886, pp. 67–68, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1762090.

“The Factory Bill.” The British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no. 855, 19 May 1877, pp. 631–633, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25244678.

“The New Factory Bill.” The British Medical Journal, vol. 1, no. 1576, 14 Mar. 1891, pp. 590–592, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20242031.

Vallance, Zona. “Women as Moral Beings.” International Journal of Ethics, vol. 12, no. 2, 1902, pp. 173–195, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2376312.

Waite, John B. The Prevention of Repeated Crime. The University of Michigan Press, 1943. https://core.ac.uk/works/69336455.

Ward, Harry Frederick. Poverty and Wealth, from the Viewpoint of the Kingdom of God. Edited by Henry Herman Meyer, Methodist Book Concern, 1915. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Poverty_and_Wealth_from_the_Viewpoint_of/JwNUAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Waterbury, W A. “Training for Selling--- How the Principles of Salesmanship Are Applied.” Selling: The Principles of the Science of Salesmanship; Methods and Systems of Selling in Various Lines, edited by A L Macbain et al., The System Company, Chicago, Illinois, 1905, pp. 1–16.

Weatherly, Ulysses Grant. “How Does the Access of Women to Industrial Occupations React on the Family?” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 14, no. 6, May 1909, pp. 740–765, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2762549.

Weber, George H. “Clinical Approach to Selecting and Training Personnel for Institutions Serving Delinquents.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 47, no. 1, 1956, pp. 33–45, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol47/iss1/4.

Weinstein, Paul A., and the Washington D.C. Bureau of Research. Labor Market Activity of Veterans: Some Aspects of Military Spillover, United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969, pp. Ii–473. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED033308.

Willis, Charles F. “The Needs of Better Mining Education.” Economic Series, edited by Charles F Willis, University of Arizona Bureau of Mines, Tucson, Arizona, 1916, pp. 3–16. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Economic_Series/Z9EYAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Wilson, James H. “America’s Interests in China.” The North American Review, vol. 166, no. 495, Feb. 1898, pp. 129–141, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25118950.

Wilson, Thurlow R, John A Richards, and United States Department of Labor. Wanted: Jobs with Fair Pay for Veterans with Disabilities, Human Resources Research Organization, 1974, pp. 2–48. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED133474.

Wintemute, Robert. “Recognising New Kinds of Direct Sex Discrimination: Transsexualism, Sexual Orientation and Dress Codes.” The Modern Law Review, vol. 60, no. 3, May 1997, pp. 334–359, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1097240.

“Women in Industry.” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 8, no. 3, Mar. 1919, pp. 209–216, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41827453.

Newspapers:

Amerigo. “The Boarding vs. Housekeeping Question.” The Chicago Daily Tribune, 7 Feb. 1875, p. 11.

“An Echo From The Strike: The United States Government Report Made Public.” The St. Joseph Gazette, 13 Nov. 1894, p. 2.

“Annual Convention of Knights of Labor--- Points Made by Grand Master Powderly--- Labor Brevities.” Buffalo Courier Express, 7 Oct. 1885, p. 1.

“Anthracite Mine Labor.” Wilkes-Barre Times, 10 July 1904, p. 13.

Arnold, S.G. “Remarks of S.G. Arnold.” The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 26 Jan. 1850, p. 1.

Arpy, Jim. “Urge Q-C Area Employers to Hire the Handicapped.” Times-Democrat, 4 May 1966, p. 3.

“As to Retirements.” The Salt Lake Tribune, 9 Apr. 1894, p. 4.

Avery, Walter Robert. “Ex-Cons Steal to Live, Says Slayer of Ogden Officer.” The Ogden Standard Examiner, 2 May 1941, p. 21.

Berry, Coleen Dee, and Jody Calendar. “Sheltered Workshops: A Halfway Point.” Asbury Park Press, 25 Feb. 1979, pp. 29–30.

“Chelmsford Chronicle.” Essex Chronicle, 27 June 1856, p. 3.

“Chicago Italians: What Educated Citizens from Italy Say About the Neapolitan Immigrants.” The Chicago Tribune, 4 Mar. 1886, p. 9.

“Chicago Teachers Unite in Plan to Secure Equitable Pension Law.” The Chicago Daily Tribune, 4 Mar. 1907, p. 8.

Conant, James B. “Unemployed Youth Nobody’s Affair?” The Boston Globe, 23 Oct. 1961, p. 13.

“Cry For More Pensions.” The Illustrated Buffalo Express, 16 Dec. 1906, p. 17.

“Dr. Channing H. Tobias Tells Foreign Y Workers Of Work Among Negroes.” The New York Age, 1 Aug. 1931, p. 7.

Ellis, Harold, et al. “Stronger Labor Laws Are Sought In Measures Now Pending Before Legislature.” The Sacramento Bee, 31 Jan. 1919, p. 16.

Esoteric Publishing Company. “Agents.” The Boston Globe, vol. 31, no. 82, 23 Mar. 1887, p. 7.

“First National Platform of the United Labor Party, Adopted at Cincinnati, May 16, 1888.” The Topeka Post, 22 June 1888, p. 2.

Hallett & Co. “Are You Making Money?” Northumberland County Democrat, 4 Mar. 1887, p. 2.

Harrison, Bob. “Congressional Letter.” The Eagle, 26 June 1952, p. 1.

Howells, Joseph. “Work Your Way Through the College; Easy to Do It in City of Two Millions.” The Chicago Tribune, 23 Aug. 1908, p. 53.

“Improvement In Wages.” The Daily Ledger, 15 Aug. 1904, p. 4.

J.B.A. Sayers. “Matron.” The Age, no. 17301, 27 Aug. 1910, p. 5.

MacLaughlin, E. “Rehabilitation, Restoration of Lost Earning Power.” Buffalo Courier Express, 13 Oct. 1953, p. 16.

Maxim, Jane A. “Found Work for Over 800 Persons.” The Berkshire Evening Eagle, 30 June 1904, p. 3.

“Merchants Come To Terms.” The New York Age, 20 Aug. 1938, p. 6.

“Metropolitan Life Official Tells Why Company Does Not Hire Negroes.” The Press-Forum Weekly, 3 May 1930, p. 1.

“N.A.A.C.P. Adopts Big Program At CONFAB: Resolutions Pledge To Aid In Economics.” The Pittsburgh Courier, 13 July 1935, p. 13.

“New York Bus Line Will Not Hire Negroes.” The Northwest Enterprise, 22 Feb. 1934, p. 1.

Nichols, Othniel F. “The Engineer: What He Should Be and of What His Work Should Consist.” The Daily Standard Union, 6 Dec. 1892, p. 6.

“One Writer Expresses the Opinions of Most Union Men: By a Member of a Local Labor Union.” Oakland Enquirer, 27 July 1901, p. 8.

“Petticoat Pensioners: The Husbands of Actresses Who Lived Off Their Wives’ Earnings.” St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, 26 Dec. 1884, p. 7.

“Railway Pension Fund: Pennsylvania Company’s Plan to Aid Employees In Old Age.” The Atchison Daily Globe, 18 Aug. 1899, p. 5.

Robinson, George D. “Men, Fall Back! Orders Captain-General and Admiral Robinson.” The Boston Daily Globe, 22 June 1886, p. 5.

Sheppard, J R. “Unemployment A Social Problem--- Not Economic.” The Pittsburgh Press, 17 Jan. 1932, p. 37.

“The Other Side: The Chinese Question From Another Standpoint--- What Employers Have To Say About It.” The Daily Bee, 15 Nov. 1876, p. 1.

“The Parrott Case: The Employment of Chinese by Corporations.” San Francisco Chronicle, 23 Mar. 1880, p. 4.

“Value of Immigration.” The Emporia News, 1 Dec. 1871, p. 1.

“Want Pensions: School Teachers Address the Board of Education.” The Brooklyn Citizen, 20 Mar. 1894, p. 6.

“Wanted to Hire.” New-York Evening Post, 11 Feb. 1802, p. 3.

Wesley, Phyllis. “Disabled Doesn’t Mean Defeated - But Studies Show 50-75% of Handicapped Unemployed.” The Palm Beach Post, 7 Oct. 1985, pp. 39; 68, 70.

Wilson, W Keith. “Parole Officer Asserts ‘Cons’ Can Get Work.” The Ogden Standard Examiner, 2 May 1941, p. 21.

“Woman’s Lack of Individuality.” The New Northwest, 10 Nov. 1871, p. 2.

“Women Out of Work: Hundreds of Destitute Females Without Employment.” The Sunday Inter Ocean, 17 Dec. 1893, p. 14.

“Working Wives Not Preferred: Leading Employment Agencies, Asked to Give Their Opinions on Business Efficiency of Married Women, Prefer Single Girls Under Thirty.” The Hartford Courant, 27 Oct. 1929, p. 65.