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.
B: The Equal Employment Opportunity Questions
Race:
Everett Chamberlin stated that General Ulysses S. Grant was the first American general to express major cordiality toward Black Americans and freed slaves, a mere year before Lincoln would announce his Emancipation Proclamation (Chamberlin 287-288). In 1862, Grant, before he became the president, ordered army camp soldiers to care for and train any runaway slaves that entered their campgrounds (Chamberlin 144; 289). He had offered all white amenities and positions to the freed slaves; Chamberlin believed that this was an impetus for the waning rebellion in the South (Chamberlin 290). While it was actually Senator Henry Wilson from Massachusetts who had first proposed the bill to Congress to free the slaves of the District of Columbia, Grant was so exemplary that his actions moved Lincoln to push further for the freedom of all slaves (Chamberlin 293; 537).
Three years later, in 1865, upon the joint efforts of Wilson, Grant, Lincoln, and other anonymous legislators, Congress would establish the Freedmen’s Bureau for the hospitality and employment of all freed slaves (Chamberlin 144). While this was a step in the right direction, little did they consider that dark-skinned races had already been stepping on whites for centuries. Fiamingo revealed that African and Asian races had founded civilizations more advanced than those established by the white race which had dared to call itself superior despite its setbacks (Fiamingo 407). Slavery, according to Charles Johnson, simply regards the utilization of borrowed, full-time workers for elucidating the “arduous routine of developing a new country” (Johnson 128), but white people did not realize the power of Black labor when left alone. Before yielding to the persistent illusion of racial superiority inspired by the innovations of “colored” races over an expansive stretch of incubation, whites were equal if not lower in competence relative to all other “colored” races within a comparable socioeconomic context (Fiamingo 407-408). It was bizarre, then, for the white race to expect Black workers to assimilate quickly to a nation in which whites had already absorbed those notions and skills which Black workers had to discern independently (Fiamingo 409). Economist Thorstein Veblen theorized that the modern phenomenon of the trickle-down economy originated from late stages of barbarism, in which the upper crust was exempt from industrial labor; they only bothered to be honorable warriors or priests (J Kelley 64-65). Another economist, Charles Hortin Cooley, believed that the lower classes only perceived class divisions when they enrolled in unions which emphasized the struggles perpetuated by greedy corporations (J Kelley 87). Yet another expressed that in the southern United States, poor white citizens were more abusive toward slaves than their patriarchal owners because “of the conflict of the declassed against the propertied” (J Kelley 226). Black workers were doubly cornered by the white race: they falsely lumped Black people into one colored race in disregard of the diverse nations of Africa, and proceeded to insult their intelligence by discrediting the intellectual contributions of colored races altogether (Fiamingo 411-412). This racist caricature was insulating the United States from the dream of the most lucrative facet of productivity, which was the collaboration of races in a team effort to profit from increasing social welfare (Fiamingo 413). Fairness in employment leaned on stereotypical ideas about the common interests of Black citizens, yet any employment trumped slavery I suppose. For example, in New Jersey in 1903, the Civic League employed Black women in garment making and babysitting; they even gave the women tea after a long day of sewing, “for there is nothing colored people enjoy quite so much as meetings” (Chapin 184). Their daughters engaged in sewing, knitting, and crocheting, while their sons formed faux government chambers, wove baskets, and learned about the business of caning (Chapin 184-185). Caroline Chapin wrote that while these boys could not aspire to much more than working with garbage or coal in the northern states, they could train to become carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, or painters in the southern states, despite having less freedoms down there (Chapin 185).
By the turn of the twentieth century, nearly 80% of the increasing Black population of America lived in the southern states, with other migrants moving to states west of the Mississippi River (Johnson 129). They had also moved north, which strained Black employment alongside the rebirth of white culture in the southern states, until the immigration embargo would empower Black innovation in the north (Johnson 129; 131). The north placed 90% of the migrants into unskilled domestic labor positions, in order to emulate peacetime conditions, without ample opportunities to sharpen their skills (Ransom 406). Prejudiced policies prevented Black employees from participation in northern unions (Donald 440). The amount of Black federal employees did not rise in sync with the amount of white federal employees upon the start of World War I (Ransom 408). The federal government, and the military, abandoned their cultivation of diversity by demoting and firing Black clerical workers (Ransom 408). While the amicable relationship among white and Black laborers was far underrepresented in media, racial tension culminated to the point at which employers of striking white employees hired Black workers as substitutes in order to “keep down wages and thus destroy unionism,” causing violent and deadly race riots (Donald 437-438). The tobacco industry converted unskilled peon slaves into skilled mechanics and artisans and relegated them southward to exhibit their agricultural strengths through picking cotton, thus further endowing the professional accreditation of Black slaves and subsequently displacing impoverished white southern labor (Johnson 128). White slave owners also exploited the flexibility of their slaves and inadvertently provided them with conducive experience in toilsome professions such as blacksmithing, carpentry, masonry, and shoemaking, among others, which would eventually induce their eligibility for participation in free competition with white laborers (Johnson 128-129). Employers struggling because of the draft did not evaluate supplementing their vacancies with treasured Black workers during the war before Dr. George E. Haynes stepped in, operating the Division of Negro Economics of the Department of Labor in order to properly employ qualified Black workers into those neediest industries (Ransom 406). Although Haynes did establish advisory committees, the division only demonstrated that Black workers were there to stay, regardless of their promotion; this operation turned out to be an empty promise of progress (Ransom 407). Race riots broke out during the 1910s in opposition to Black unionization (Donald 438-439). In the north, federal councils did not command full jurisdiction over white unions, causing these tensions to spread (Donald 440). In a 1919 publicity stunt, the American Federation of Labor permitted Black members, indicating the potential for Black unionship in the future, to the chagrin of white union leaders who did not abstain from diminishing their Black brethren (Ransom 407). In 1920, in one contentious case, the American Federation of Labor forced the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, a historically white institution, to permit Black members, under the threat of losing their charter (Donald 440-441). This was not an outright abolishment of discrimination, but rather a strong suggestion to reduce instances of discrimination in the future; this was surely a weak proposal in comparison to the systemic nature of racism which had a stronghold on employment practices (Donald 441). Since the federation was a conglomerate of smaller national and international unions which all would have had to revise their racial restrictions, it was difficult for it to fully enforce this measure (Donald 442-443). 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). In turn, the amount of skilled American Black employees, particularly in the turpentine and tobacco industries, nationally increased to an exceptional 34% by 1923; this included unionized Black employees (Johnson 131). The automotive, steel, and manufacturing industries experienced marked increases in Black employment during the 1920s (Johnson 131). Unfortunately, Black employees were also the first to get laid off when firms needed to downsize (Johnson 133).
America did learn from the Great Depression to not discriminate against not only Black employees, but anybody, because every citizen needed financial assistance; if the country wanted to return to its former glory of production minus racism, then it needed to multiply Black workers in skilled, unskilled, and white-collar occupations (Ransom 410). As a result of mass migrations decades prior, there were more Black candidates than ever, plus “an acute shortage of white, native-born labor developing in the industrial centers” (Ransom 410). 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 lives and character 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). Despite that, businesses which attracted Black customers during the Great Depression hired none of them, inspiring a “don’t buy where you can’t work” movement (Murray 393).
Meanwhile, in New York City in 1930, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was apprehensive to hire Black employees (Press-Forum Weekly 1). Statistics showed that while most of the employees of this firm were white, in a stunning disconnect, colored Americans had invested $960 million into insurance policies (today: more than $17.6 billion USD) (Press-Forum Weekly 1). The president of the company, Leroy A Lincoln, replied to this information grabbed from a letter sent in by Black mortician Ernest Barringer, stating that it was a matter of business, not of prejudice; white employees would renounce the company, but Lincoln reportedly possessed no hatred against colored races, boasting that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was the only insurance firm in the nation to issue policies to colored applicants (Press-Forum Weekly 1). Barringer subsequently chastised this response and advised the company to hire more colored agents to ensure “the race of at least a small return on the enormous investment in insurance they have” (Press-Forum Weekly 1). Barringer advertised Black-owned insurance companies Victory Life Insurance in New York and Supreme Liberty Life Insurance in Illinois and reasonably preferred them over Metropolitan or any other insurance firm run by white men (Press-Forum Weekly 1). Shortly afterward, the Fifth Avenue bus line in New York City refused to hire Black employees because the president of the bus line, Frederick T Wood, tersely confirmed to a mixed delegation his stance that Black employees were incapable and incompetent for the position (Northwest Enterprise 1). He noted that it was stringently against the policy of the Fifth Avenue bus line to hire Black people (Northwest Enterprise 1). At the same time, the NAACP reproached how densely Black states severely underpaid their Black workers (Pittsburgh Courier 13).
Back in New York in 1938, something positive occurred: an agreement established between the Greater New York Coordinating Committee for Employment and the Uptown Chamber of Commerce scrolled across national headlines, as it became the first publicized indication of retail districts setting a quota for Black employees (New York Age 1938 6). At minimum, stores situated on 125th Street had to verify that one third of their staff at minimum consisted of Black employees, namely in substitution of white employees (New York Age 1938 6). Businesses owned and run by families were required to open positions to Black applicants (New York Age 1938 6). Porters, janitors, and other Black workers likewise engaged in manual labor could no longer be lumped into the category of clerical white-collar workers (New York Age 1938 6). Also in 1938, the New Negro Alliance won its case against the Sanitary Grocery Company when the judge proclaimed that the employment contract of the grocery store included a clause which insinuated that protesters, who were not employed by or in any direct relationship with the store, could be classified as “persons interested in the dispute” of racist employment practices because racism was a universal endemic which could not be limited to localized affairs (Murray 394-395). The ruling granted immunities to minorities victimized by racial and religious discrimination in that their protests were no longer defined as race riots but rather as productive labor disputes (Murray 395). Furthermore, the case removed protections for protesters who were trying to monopolize rather than equalize racial employment quotas, as these protests were glorified race riots (Murray 396). Susan Olzak defined “ethnic collective action” as either conflict or protest: ethnic conflict is “a confrontation between two or more ethnic groups” with the aim of expressing “ethnic claims and grievances, or demands for or against the interests of an ethnic population as a whole;” meanwhile, ethnic protest turns to the general public or government office for support (Olzak 186). She discussed the afflictions faced by the Black, Asian, European immigrant populations, and Caucasians under these definitions (Olzak 187). Olzak supported the argument by American sociologist Stanley Lieberson that collective action endured by these ethnicities was not the result of race; specifically, he constructed the struggle as a byproduct of economic competition for employment, housing, or even partners, according to Olzak, rather than a reaction to skin tone (Olzak 187). Regardless, to put a stop to this vitriolic nonsense, the United States Office of Education ultimately declared in 1940 that discrimination against race and creed were censurable (Ransom 411). Notwithstanding how President Franklin Roosevelt supported the efforts of coalitions such as the Office of Production Management and the Negro Employment and Training Branch of the Labor Division, white employers across the nation resolutely recruited white applicants in their advertisements because Black candidates were considered uneducable (Ransom 411). In exchange, Roosevelt implemented Executive Order 8802 in 1941 which prohibited discrimination against race, creed, nationality, and gender, adding that all war contracts must contain nondiscrimination clauses; this bred the President’s Committee on Fair Employment Practices (Ransom 411).
A growth of Black employment in the 1950s resulted from a mere repercussion of labor shortages rather than a deficit in discrimination from white employers (Patton Jr 336). Regardless, Black people were increasingly represented as semi-skilled and unskilled salespeople, clerks, managers, and more, and the proportion of white and Black male laborers began to reach equilibrium as employers hired teenagers and seniors (Patten Jr 327). Black women were ditching domestic careers because the pay was abysmal in comparison to newer industrial opportunities which were opening to all women (Patten Jr 327). White employees played the slavery card when they figured that a member of a minority ethnicity should perform certain menial tasks and proceeded to criticize their inferiors for their efforts (Roper 588). At the same time, victims of discrimination manifested the stereotypes that their employers had constructed for them; they worried so much about their survival in the workplace environment that it drained their productivity and sociability (Roper 588). Moreover, racism factionalized employees and made them turn on one another (Roper 588). Some social theories suggested that a declining ethnic conflict peaked upon ethnic populations surging into the labor market, but Olzak claimed that since the conflict had not yet calmed, this could not possibly have been the culprit (Olzak 188). If there were multiple Black workers in a white section, then their employer had the inclination to downgrade that entire section just because of the colored members (Roper 586). Interestingly, management was always subconsciously afraid that the minority groups under their thumb would have been their superiors if they were not actively discriminatory; they had to externalize this fear at the risk of causing industrial tension in order to regain superiority (Roper 587). Upon rare occasions, minorities were granted the role of supervisor or manager, yet their white employees berated them for their race despite their rank (Roper 589).
By 1954, Black workers were not displaced by white workers nearly as often as they had been during World War II, yet the low number of full-time Black workers did not rise (Hope II 263). Hodges wrote that there were three parties circumnavigating the discrimination triangle: racist employers, negligent trainers, and disheartened Black employees (Hodges 16). Northern unions did find success with moderating racist industrial practices in the South by stitching mandatory nondiscrimination clauses into their contracts: it was the joint responsibility for both employers and employees to report incidents of discrimination; if they could not reach a contractual agreement, then the union would call in an arbitrator (Hope II 263-264). One of these unions, the UPWA-CIO, or the Union of the United Packinghouse Workers of America, struck nationwide in 1949; by 1954, they managed to enforce nondiscriminatory clauses for “the Big Four Packers” of the country; in the South, many major cities seemed to cooperate (Hope II 266). In 1955, Michigan passed its Fair Employment Practices Act statute, nine years before Title VII in 1964, to benefit people of various races, national origins, religious backgrounds, and ancestries (Hodges 16). This act constituted the power to resolve discrimination complaints through conciliation or cease-and-desist orders for employers of eight or more employees and all labor organizations in the state (Hodges 16). In the South, federal firms were the most concordant with antiracist policies (Hope II 271). Hodges advocated for Black job candidates to educate themselves on positive affirmations that would preclude them from pessimism in a time of change (Hodges 16). James Conant wished to refute the racist misconception that Black citizens of the dilapidated slum areas of large cities were indolent to “raise themselves by their own bootstraps” as the previous white generation had done; he argued that that previous generation had emulated their ancestors who had had to work themselves out of poverty out of necessity (Conant 13). These immigrants came from kindred religious communities acclimated to labor shortages rather than bustling cities wherein machinery was quickly replacing Black unskilled labor (Conant 13). The UPWA stopped hosting their conventions in facilities which administered racist employment policies; hotels nationwide responded by upending those policies (Hope II 266). In Chicago, the Swift and Company packing plant began hiring Black women after an arbitration settlement resulted in six Black women accepting “seniority rights and back pay from the date of the offense” up to $6,000 (today: more than $68,000) (Hope II 267). Most progress, though scarce, occurred for Black female employees within the clerical and artisanal sectors, chiefly in northern states (Hope II 270). The few and proud Southern Black female workers could thank national economic forces for their employment, not character development from their employers (Hope II 270). Meanwhile, in the South, Black employees were still discouraged from filling white-collar or supervisory vacancies despite the rare cases when Black employees and their white coworkers did receive equal pay for equal work (Hope II 269). Finally, in 1963, Kennedy passed an executive order enforcing equal employment opportunities for discriminated minorities, but before the effect settled into a reality, employers differed on how to handle discrimination or were deeply rooted in customs which had not considered equitable employment practices among racial backgrounds, most of which would take a substantial amount of time to reverse for their staff (Patten Jr 342-343). Southern small businesses began to hire more Black employees with shockingly little backlash from white protesters (Patten Jr 343). Black protesters, threatening economic turmoil, kicked businesses into action to eliminate segregation policies at diners and other public businesses in the Southern states (Patten Jr 343). Economists forecasted an entire market for Black folk due to their congregation into urban areas and their preference for businesses that treated them like the human beings that they always were (Patten Jr 344). Conant remarked that racial discrimination contributed to the glorification of white slums of the past rather than any concrete comparisons (Conant 13). Worse, data for youth unemployment was elusive if not unreliable, outside of one study which strove to prove that northern employers were overlooking the sorry state of Black neighborhoods while quietly discriminating against their citizens (Conant 13). Conant observed that if public funding entered the scene, then this problem could have been solved earlier, yet the government once again ignored the plights of Black neighborhoods amidst efforts by Black rights groups to erase the word “Negro” from the American lexicon in a faulty initiative to eliminate employment discrimination on the basis of race (Conant 13).
Sexual Identity and Gender:
By 1857, while the United States outstripped England in its employment of women in public education, it was still trailing behind the English by not placing women in positions of power outside of asylum visitation (Barnard 486). Women were improperly trained so that their employers could find an excuse for underpaying them (King 462). In 1871, one columnist wrote that it was worthless for wives to work since their husbands made more money anyway (The New Northwest 2). However, even diligent housework demonstrated that women were responsible enough to receive equal pay to men (The New Northwest 2). 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).
In 1883, Mary 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 number of employed American women over the age of ten years old doubled between 1870 and 1900, especially in “occupations which particularly appeal to the more intelligent and ambitious” such as trade and transportation services (Weatherly 743). Unmarried women were the most likely to find a job because, when employed in the skilled trades, they avoided the dependence of marriage that plagued women of the generation (Weatherly 744). However, unmarried women were also at risk because they were not as disciplined as married women were (Weatherly 749). European industrial art schools were all the rage in the 1880s; the United States imported European art because they were so focused on industrial labor, but they soon realized that it was less expensive to produce these items in American factories (Livermore 97-99). Thus, industrial art schools sprang up all across the United States (Livermore 97-99). Women attended the Philadelphia, New York, and Cincinnati schools (Livermore 101-102). Women could now easily find employment (Livermore 103). Girls were learning by 1882 that in order to compete with the industries dominated by men, they had to train themselves in occupations such as journalism, retail, and telegraphy, as well as education, the stereotypical female occupation (Livermore 133). Wives found employment a challenge when they perceived it as temporary and supplementary to their husbands’ incomes anyway, and as a result their employers did not consider female wages to contribute toward their cost of living (Weatherly 744-745). Ironically it may have been better for women to stay at home; when wives were the breadwinners, their husbands were generally more slovenly and their children less nourished, correlating with a higher infant mortality rate (Weatherly 745-746). This coincided with the fact that labor organizations were apprehensive about hiring too many women because that would mean that less men would be working and more children would be endangered (Weatherly 746). Male wages were already decreasing in districts wherein women were halfheartedly working and raising their children at the same time (Weatherly 747). Men welcomed women to perform their “menial labor” for them (Livermore 133).
Early classifieds which outlined birth dates were typically posted by clairvoyants. However, in 1887, Esoteric Publishing Company near Boston, Massachusetts, aptly named, scouted agents of “either sex” but required that they submit a date of birth with their application (Boston Globe 7). Also in 1887, Hallett and Company in Portland, Maine hired all sexes for unspecified print work, promising up to $25 per day (Hallett & Co 2), which translates to almost $808 USD per day in 2023. What a ludicrous salary: today that would be more than $4,000 a week before taxes, or more than $200,000 per year. The most impoverished women in Chicago in 1893 were the most reluctant to proclaim their struggles because of their physical circumstances (Inter Ocean 14). They applied to hotels and retailers despite a lack of vacancies in either industry, alongside restaurants, factories, retailers, and other businesses, offering to work for slim wages; they sometimes slept at police stations after begging in the streets (Inter Ocean 14). Inexperienced women, not impoverished women, were the most willing to work for retailers during the holidays, and their eagerness got them hired first; larger retailers tried to retain their employees for as long as possible and did not wish more hardships on these poor women (Inter Ocean 14). Hundreds of women waited in the lobbies of employment agencies as institutions such as the Anchorage Mission and the YWCA quickly filled with women in the winter, leaving others destitute and frostbitten outside (Inter Ocean 14). Skipping to 1909, however, women worked as street cleaners, garbage collectors, sanitation and sewage workers, foresters, milk suppliers, jailers, factory inspectors, and more (Cooley 126-127). In the 1910s, women entered the clerical, professional, and sales industries, as “operative employment” declined in popularity, due to the promise of higher salaries and less hours worked (Cvrcek 3). In 1918, the United States Railroad Administration ensured that women working in clerical, custodial, and coaching positions worked ample hours, sometimes dangerously, at reasonable pay rates equivalent to those of their male counterparts (Monthly Labor Review 211). Frank Merriam proposed a measure in 1919 that would prevent women from working under two corporations at a time for more than eight total hours; these women could be charged with a misdemeanor if they had not provided advanced notice to their second employer that they were simultaneously employed at the firm of their primary employer (Ellis et al 16). Eight hours per day meant “eight hours during any one day of twenty-four hours” to prevent a loophole that would allow for employers to schedule women from, for example, 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM on Wednesday and from 12:00 AM to 8:00 AM on that subsequent Thursday (Ellis 16). Another legislator thought that women should work for an additional thirty minutes per workday in order to gain a “half holiday” on Saturdays without any repercussions (Ellis 16).
In the radio set manufacturing industry, men slightly outranked women in the field (Manning 6). However, in the radio tube manufacturing side of the field, women were kicking men to the curb (Manning 16). In an ageist fashion, the industry scoffed at older women because radio was a booming business that craved younger, stronger employees (Manning 27). At receiver factories, women were mainly employed seasonally , and as soon as orders declined, the factories laid off their female engineers, who were mostly under the age of thirty (Manning 18; 26). After all, this was the 1930s, when employers preferred young single women although they were already old at the age of thirty (Hartford Courant 65). Regardless, it seemed that discrimination based on gender was rarer in the radio industry in comparison to other industries (Manning 27). New dial phones laid off hundreds of women from being human operators (Best 6), yet, as of 1933, women were switchboard operators, bookkeepers, clerks, supervisors, office managers, librarians, and researchers for the telephone industry (Best 1). Those women who abruptly had to nail down other similar positions reported lower wages and scarcer opportunities (Best 8). Again, the majority were under the age of thirty or forty (Best 10).
The Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor disclosed in 1939 that women were working out of necessity to supplement their family income, not because they wanted an independent career (Cousins 15). About 49% of women worked in domestic or clerical fields while the other 51% worked in mechanical, professional, trade, agricultural, and transportation areas (Cousins 17). A nationwide study showed that most women were the breadwinners of their families even if they desired to stay at home instead (Cousins 17). Women were perceived as timely taskmasters, partially if not fully because of their transition from household duties (Monthly Labor Review 1943 197). Employers also took account of the physical strength of women and either had men doing heavy lifting tasks or counterbalances and conveyors reducing the strenuous work element for women (Monthly Labor Review 1943 200). This statistic may have enticed a cynical population to support the notion that firing those millions of working women, who, in their opinion, had had no right to be working in the first place, was the best solution to employ millions of unemployed American men (Cousins 14). For example, California wished to make it a crime for employers to hire women into private businesses or public offices (Cousins 14). Other state courts asserted that it was unconstitutional to discriminate against anyone because all citizens were “entitled to the benefit of the Constitutional guarantees” (Cousins 63). Based on the latest data, Cousins estimated that women could only fill 3% of those vacancies, fearful that the nation was progressing toward an utter banishment of women from the workplace; the domino effect would trail from the precedent of discrimination and proceed toward women barred from employment altogether (Cousins 17-18). This was true despite the fact that almost 25% of women eligible to work were employed; of all employed American women in 1939, only 29% were married (Cousins 17), and we know how management liked their single women. War changed the narrative. Because the nation was fixated on defense during World War II, gender became irrelevant; in many cases, women championed over men across the industry (M Robinson 657). Women were employed to manufacture ammunition and explosives because of the ease of training (M Robinson 657). As of 1943, more than 410,000 women worked in the aircraft manufacturing industry, mostly in plants producing airplanes and airplane parts rather than secretarial positions, and the radio communication industry employed 300,000 women (M Robinson 658-659). A third of the workers in the milling industry for small arms were female by 1943 (M Robinson 660). Women were employed in the petroleum industry as laboratory testers, assistants, and stenographers and displaced men in laboratory and research departments of refineries (Monthly Labor Review 1943 197; 200). To prepare for this tragedy, employers held meetings of their men to warn them that women were useful but could not lift heavy objects like they could (Monthly Labor Review 1943 200). Pulling these dedicated women from their jobs would topple the economy from the top down, though, as an endemic of quitting female teachers would abandon students who could become delinquents; resigning female managers would risk the elimination of hundreds of jobs and stir suspicion over the structural integrity of their former companies (Cousins 18). Even Nazi Germany realized that women were vital for accommodating its national economy (Cousins 63). Proponents of the Geneva Convention argued that women needed autonomy in finding work during and after marriage in order to sustain their matrimony and birth rates worldwide, and that the population needed to espouse new social conventions (Cousins 63). Unsurprisingly, civil progress was slow. In the 1950s, Elmo Roper was more than a decade ahead of the curve when he wrote about the blatant discrimination that was, and still is, present in the labor industry (Roper 585). Female factory workers, negligently or otherwise, did not enjoy contractual standards such as overtime and lunch breaks because of sexist management policies (Roper 586-587). Roper calculated that people worked for a third of their lives; if that piece of life was tarnished by inequitable practices, it killed willpower (Roper 587). Roper lamented that it was challenging to eliminate discrimination in a system in which white men had been indoctrinated to treat others with prejudice (Roper 587).
Stop the presses: we have a new contender, folks. Meet George Weber, who identified in 1956 that the employment application blank, references, and the interview, and assessments as initiated by different personnel, precipitated a proportional picture of applicants (Weber 39). Weber believed that the application blank had to simply inquire applicants about their “background, training, experience, and physical fitness,” excluding characteristics such as sexuality, religious or political affiliation, age, and others (Weber 39). This was a progressive mindset for an era of prejudice. Personality, skills, motivations, and experiences sculpted a wholly human candidate (Weber 40). Effective vocational questions touched upon their past hurdles and how they would participate or possibly deviate from the company culture (Weber 40). Lengthy psychiatric questions explored the mental deficiencies and struggles of candidates, including neuroses, psychosis, intellectual challenges, prejudices, and— regrettably— tendency toward homosexuality, namely when applying for positions involving children (Weber 41). Psychiatrists would pinpoint physical attributes like “unusual blandness, rigidity, lack of emotional warmth, evasion, glibness, mannerisms, tics, and impulsiveness” (Weber 41). This idealized interview process leaned on the weaknesses rather than the strengths of candidates (Weber 41).
According to Hugh Higgins, in 1963, the demographic of working women was greater than that of the combined demographics of young and elderly workers (Higgins 1). Mostly these women were in college or in their forties (Higgins 18). About 34% of the workforce in 1962 had consisted of women, and surely that number was escalating (Higgins 17). Higgins attributed this phenomenon to the interpolation of education in urban rather than rural areas of the country which galvanized women to train themselves for white-collar employment as well as foster a better educational environment for their children (Higgins 18). In 1960, women had 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 rudimental 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). It helped matters that domestic technology had reduced the physical toil of housework for the smaller families of the time and that occupational technology had ameliorated processes to the point where more women were attracted to white-collar employment alongside part-time employment in suburban trade and service industries (Higgins 18). Ageism still dominated, as it was more daunting for women to find employment after they turned 54 (Higgins 18).
Sexism, and beyond, also continued to find a home in the minds of managers and employers nationwide. By the 1970s, however, the conversation turned toward not only gender, but also sexuality and its malleability. Top employers complained that homosexuality was a discriminatory factor in employment even though the only discriminatory factor that mattered was performance (Mahoney 13). Reed Erickson believed that it was possible for transgender folk to return to their previous jobs with their new outlook on life after having had “a frank private discussion about his plans” (Erickson 9). Unskilled work for small entities, such as restaurants in need of waiters or parents in need of babysitters, was a good reset after the surgery (Erickson 24). Other authors suggested to transgender candidates to be careful with how they expressed themselves to employers in order to afford the lifestyle transition: candidates needed to be honest, but only with information relevant to the interview questionnaire (Evans 19). Some employers were kind enough to fire transgender employees and rehire them after their surgeries in order to qualify them for unemployment insurance benefits (Erickson 23). Erickson emphasized working for firms that would fund those surgical expenses with their insurance packages (Erickson 25). In 1972, Deborah H. Feinbloom summarized that those who felt physically male and mentally female or vice versa could still live productive lives after surgical corrections resolved their mental insecurities (Mahoney 13). James Oldham chided the hypocrisy of employers who would still hire a female with masculine qualities despite their adamant stances about femininity (Oldham 68). Title VII was initially a statute protecting Black employees and other colored employees from workplace discrimination, but upon deliberation, the safeguarding of sexual identity was appended to the measure although sex was strictly biological (Coffey 172). It only ensured the protection of complainants who were being harassed for their biological sex and, in extension, “immutable characteristics or fundamental rights, such as getting married or having children” (Starr & Strauss 219). It rejected incidents of physical sexual harassment unless they were legitimately sexist in nature (Starr & Strauss 226). Based on precedential cases, Title VII, in its nature, did not preclude any discrimination against people who did not identify as straight (Starr & Strauss 226).
Before the groundbreaking success of the Waterhouse case in 1988, some lower courts tried to defend businesses from Title VII litigation with a “lack of interest” defense via claiming that it was not sexist or homophobic when employers hired less women and transgender folk than cis men as their vacancies only appealed to men (Flynn 397). They also did not consider tension between employers and effeminate straight male employees as discrimination worthy of Title VII protection (Flynn 397). Attorneys could defend transgender candidates against employers who would only accept their deadnames; school boards were troubled by the morality of the surgery for the safety of their students, yet Erickson suggested that skilled attorneys could prompt board members to reconsider (Erickson 24). In 1977, the Ninth Circuit was the first national court jurisdiction to handle a transgender plaintiff, albeit poorly (Coffey 173). Employers who caught on to rumors or observed effeminate behavior in male employees could still decide to fire them via a bona fide occupational qualification defense because this was not yet covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Oldham 67). In 1979, the Ninth Circuit, incognizant of its prior milestone, dismissed the cases of three men, in Desantis v Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, who were verbally abused at work for their homosexuality, because they did not interpret Title VII to cover sexual preference (Starr & Strauss 216). Carolyn Coffey explained that the United States court system found it more practical to deal with gender in the traditional manner than muddy it with a spectrum of sexualities (Coffey 165). Gender dysphoria was not classified as a neurological condition until 1980 (Evans 8). In Sommers v Budget Marketing in 1982, eighteen years after the sanction of Title VII, a trans woman was denied her case because, while the law pertained to anatomical sexuality, her transgender orientation was classified as a mental state (Starr & Strauss 218). The consistent fluctuation of the terminology espoused by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) invited experimentation and investigation regarding how to diagnose transgender folk; convention called for pathology and focusing on their ugly differences from heteronormative society as the fallback (Evans 9-10). This inherent support of the heterosexual tradition led to hostile situations in which humans in transition were othered for their pronouns, identities, clothing, or choice of bathroom by coworkers or police officers, who are supposed to protect the peace, not instigate vilification (Coffey 165-166). Even though Erickson recognized that transgender identification certainly did not equate to psychiatric disability, he suggested that vocational rehabilitation agencies could aid transgender candidates under that category in desperate circumstances (Erickson 25).
After Waterhouse, circuit courts began to favor transgender plaintiffs on the grounds that, in Schwenk v Hartford, for instance, Schwenk was “targeted not only for their gender nonconformity, but also for their identification with the subordinate role of the feminine” (Flynn 399). In 1996, the European Court of Justice was the first judiciary body to finally legally recognize transgender discrimination after P v S and Cornwall County Council (Wintemute 339). The case regarded an employer terminating the employee for announcing her intention to go through sex change surgery (Wintemute 339). While employers did not care whether their employees were male or female, they were offended when chromosomal males presented as females and vice versa (Wintemute 342-343). The employee, who identified as transgender, won the case because, despite their choice to endure hormones and the surgical procedure rather than remain satisfied with their gender identity and expression alone, the fact that this decision could apply to both males and females defended their right to membership in a protected gender or sexuality class (Wintemute 340). The deliberation concluded that “comparison of a chromosomal male and a chromosomal female is not always necessary to find ‘discrimination on grounds of sex’” (Wintemute 341). Once it became transparent that Title VII was severely deficient, as it overlooked a vast swath of the population and viewed acts of sexual harassment as excusable unless they were charged by sexism, lawyers collaborated on a way to link violent sexual harassment to sexism as defined by Title VII and invoked a connection to Waterhouse, which had concluded that sex stereotyping constituted sexual discrimination under Title VII (Starr & Strauss 226-227). They wanted to proclaim that men and women could file a lawsuit against their employers in the name of Title VII because they were harassed for unorthodox sexual stereotypes, therefore consolidating acts of violence against those who did not align with typical gender or sex definitions, such as transgender employees in the 1980s, when the Second Circuit began to distinguish cases wherein the victim had not come out as homosexual or transgender as safe under Title VII (Starr & Strauss 228; 230). This was true unless, for example, a male employee who identified as gay but neither outed themselves nor acted the part tried to file a Title VII claim (Starr & Strauss 236).
Society was starting to awaken to the idea that sexual orientation needed to be lumped under gender identity and making it a protected class, just as it had been done for biological sex, if transgender folk stood any chance winning their testimonies (Coffey 186). Districts began to expand upon their legal definitions of sex and include “gender expression” and “gender identity” in trials involving sexual discrimination (Coffey 186). In 1990, according to a majority of the United States, AIDS was a protected physical handicap; some states were generous enough to corroborate with the federal law, which mandated the inclusion of all HIV-positive individuals under this civil protection (Labor Lawyer 546). People began to honor their ancient ancestors in this regard. Transsexuality and transgender folk were valued and accepted as far back as 3,000 BC when Greek and Mesopotamian folk worshiped the Great Mother, an intersex deity (Evans 6). When medieval churches bega funding businesses thanks to contributions from nobility, society conformed to the mandates of the dominant religion, Christianity, which treated transgender folk and crossdressers as witches (Evans 8). Naturally, xenophobia overtook the world for centuries; these modern decisions followed several discrimination lawsuits. John Chadbourne sued his employer in 1983 after they never returned an answer about whether they would reinstate him after he was diagnosed with AIDS; the employer lost the case because they could not prove that Chadbourne posed a legitimate health threat (Labor Lawyer 552-553). Another lawsuit involving the Racine Unified School District in Wisconsin concluded with the moral that it was discriminatory if employers used AIDS as a blanket reason for termination rather than investigating each individual case (Labor Lawyer 553). In Isbell, West Virginia, a waiter was even fired because of a mere rumor that he had been diagnosed with AIDS (Labor Lawyer 553). Overall, courts in the 1990s were firmer toward mothers than toward fathers when it came to custody disputes (Flynn 413). I find this ironic considering that for most of modern history, women were sequestered to the kitchen for domestic duties, which included raising children; it seems that the father was more vital in that equation than he seemed to be outwardly. In Ward v Ward in 1995, a judge granted custody of a daughter of a lesbian mother to her former husband, a convicted murderer, based on claims that the daughter was negatively influenced by stereotypical lesbian traits such as hypersexuality and overt masculinity (Flynn 409).
Dana Turner, director of the International Conference on Transgender Law and Employment Policy in 1999, pointed out that transgender folk could request new Social Security cards to bury their dead names, just like celebrities, authors, and other members of society who used pseudonyms to protect their privacy and ensure their full-time employments (Brook et al 370). As of 1999, some states allowed transgender folk to edit their birth certificates and passports to reflect their newfound sexual identities (Brook et al 370). One employee, Katherine McIntyre, endured through three years of litigation in the 1990s after a judge told her that she had to live as her new identity for at least a full year before becoming eligible for a legal name change and therefore restoring her employability (Brook et al 372). Another speaker, Professor Paisley Currah, emphasized that since the United States is a pluralistic nation with a constitutional separation of church and state, politicians must understand that employees should be protected for their gender identities, just as they are protected for their religious beliefs (Brook et al 373). This enlightenment would abate the adversity faced by transgender and other homosexual individuals involving loss of access to medical care, education, and their families and children among other fundamentals of life (Brook et al 373). Transgender plaintiffs continued to suffer until 2000, when the Ninth Circuit had a change of heart about them and ruled that “discrimination for not acting like a stereotypical man or woman was forbidden under Title VII” (Coffey 175-176). A binary treatment of sex was now insufficient for cases in which women were harassed for being “macho,” as in Waterhouse; in cases of rape, stereotypes became subsidiary to the act of violence (Coffey 175-176). Social workers negotiated with employers to hire candidates into positions which correlated with the extent of their public expression and self-actualization of their transgender qualities (Evans 43). Primarily, national firms which inherently confronted diversity hired homosexual and transgender applicants to, at minimum, present a facade of disregarding sexual orientation and rather prioritizing the standard employment credentials such as experience, performance, skills, and the like (Evans 20). In order to earn Title VII protection, plaintiffs had to prove that they ought to have been slotted into a protected class because they had been targeted for their trait, in this case homosexuality; since there was contemporary discourse about the legal definition of sexual orientation, it was naturally more debilitating for them to convince the judge that their discrimination was based solely on an arbitrary trait rather than specifically harassment or an employment dispute (Goldberg 636-637). Prohibition of discrimination based solely on gender identity was local to cities peppered nationwide, perhaps presenting the illusion that there was widespread recognition of the value of transgender folk in the workplace (Evans 21). Plaintiffs resorted to square one in individual cases to prescribe unique qualities to the definition of sexual orientation in order to properly outline their complaints to the court; ideally, the court would collect these addendums and construct a legitimate definition of sexual orientation based on the verbiage of the people, but in reality, they saw these as contributions to their perspective that societally defined terminology did not permit victories for these consequential cases (Goldberg 639-640). Even scientific evidence of homosexuality could not overcome this opinion (Goldberg 641). In the end, judges were not sociologists who could diagnose the presence of homosexuality in favor of the plaintiff and therefore strict definitions ensured speedy trials (Goldberg 643). Occasionally, courts relied upon stereotypical foundations of traits such as ethnicity or gender whenever cases entered undefined territories (Goldberg 647-648).
In 2004, the top supporters of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) claimed that, while they never opposed transgender rights, starting with the basics was “a step in the right direction;” bills needed to be spoonfed to Congress one privilege at a time in order to make them digestible (Ayres & Brown 1657-1658). Unfortunately, this put ENDA supporters at odds with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which was advocating transgender inclusion to the extreme of not supporting any bill that omitted the demographic from its umbrella (Ayres & Brown 1658). The HRC rated companies based on how closely they adhered to their own Corporate Equality Index (CEI), which listed seven criteria for support of all sexual orientations (Ayres & Brown 1659-1660). The bulk of Fortune-500 companies complied with the HRC, but this was distinct from their Fair Employment ranking which utterly prohibited discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation of any variety and assured that all jurisdictions understood the gravity of the consequences of discrimination (Ayres & Brown 1661). Authors Starr & Strauss acutely identified in 2006 that both outed and closeted homosexual employees defied their gender stereotypes and therefore both parties should have received equal protection (Starr & Strauss 237). As long as small companies hired even just one employee who was not straight, they could fulfill the expectations of the HRC by upholding the principles of affirmative action (Ayres & Brown 1662).
Socioeconomic Status:
In 1888, the United Labor Party (ULP) announced to the public that poverty was unconstitutional as it resulted from “neglect of the self-evident truths proclaimed by the founders of this republic” (Topeka Post 2). They pinned private land monopolization, as provoked by owners of private farmland who requested exorbitant mortgage payments for employment on their farms, as the culprit for rampant unemployment and destitution, alongside theft of the American right to “use of the bounties of nature” (Topeka Post 2). This farmland was ideal for housing development and manual labor exerted by the unemployed (Topeka Post 2). Outrageous rent, with the additional burden of the competition inherent in the free labor market, equally burdened unemployed rural citizens; they pocketed unsubstantial wages as production costs dwindled and land prices mushroomed (Topeka Post 2). Moulton wrote that 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). Land ought to have been taxed based not on its square acreage but rather on its public value in order to stimulate societal growth (Topeka Post 2). Business recessions, unbalanced revenue streams, classism, and income tax exacerbated poverty further; to resolve this, the party asked for the government to circulate a legal currency without the connivance of big banks and reverse the privatization of public transport (Topeka Post 2).
Great Britain in 1908 was combatting their rising elderly pauper population with “poor laws” (Baldwin 721). Their goal was to “make provisions for parents whose sons fail to support them” (Baldwin 721). Pensions were designed to reduce the strain on paupers of providing for their family when they could depend on welfare instead, which in turn made paupers into beggars and effectively worsened their lonely situations and damaged their communities (Baldwin 722). When impoverished societies did not spend money wisely when they got it, their inefficient economic sectors negatively affected overall consumption power and reduced the capacity for wealth, slashing wages as a result (Ward 29). By 1910, according to Reid, morality fell to commercial oppression (Reid 43). People were more obligated than they ever had been to spread their savings into transit and industry thanks to the trickle-down economy (Reid 46). Britain mimicked earlier efforts in Massachusetts to aid destitute families so that pauperism would not arise in economic depressions as it had in the past within the most charitable areas (Maxim 3). Aimless alms and charity did not substitute sympathetic counseling for unemployed individuals (Maxim 3). Almshouses failed to tackle the malnutrition and disease which affected most paupers, so pensions would not have targeted the major cause of pauperism, but only a side effect of disease (Baldwin 722). According to 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). Baldwin argued that pension states attracted applicants from outside the state into their own and therefore reduced wages for the employees and put too much weight on those receiving a pension while neglecting other wage earners; the severity of this would have depended on the age threshold for receiving a pension (Baldwin 723-724). Private charity, not welfare, was meant for struggling widows with ample children, sick or disabled individuals, or elderly individuals; some private aid assured that breadwinners could work in the sprawling labor market (Maxim 3). It was no longer a matter of transferring responsibilities to charitable organizations but rather a time for making sure that breadwinners were capable of independently and successfully finding stable employment in order to reduce the strain of pauperism and poverty on society (Maxim 3).
In 1915, aiming to alleviate poverty, Ward called for a radical shift: replacing weekly wages with annual salaries for laborers, arguing that America's burgeoning industrial might could afford better wages (Ward 29). While the dominant “iron law of wages” kept salaries at subsistence levels, Ward believed that strategic wage increases, coupled with controlled market expansion to avoid oversaturation, could be a recipe for both economic prosperity and improved worker wellbeing (Ward 120-121). Ward thought that the country needed to keep their reserves of furloughed and surplus employees actively employed in between full-time positions (Ward 33). Other contenders included merges and frequent machinery updates as a side effect of the Industrial Revolution and more precise definitions of the competent employee (Ward 30). Unions readily adjusted hourly wages with production fluctuations, offering temporary relief during cost increases and stabilizing employment (Moulton 36). However, salaried employees in non-unionized firms experienced a curious inverse relationship: salary increases only occurred during price drops, coinciding with increased layoff risks (Moulton 37). This rigidity in salaries, Moulton argued, stemmed from the inherent difficulty of reversing raises afterwards, making illusory bonuses a more palatable, albeit temporary, solution during economic booms (Moulton 35-36). Desperate impoverished citizens battled for employment at the new factories; there were no protocols concerning safety or worker rights (Cowdrick 16). Moreover, families who were weaned off dependency on welfare began contributing to their communities more often (Maxim 3). Over time, poverty depleted people of their “habit of industry,” and converted them into maladroit theoretical employees and aloof social individuals (Ward 29). This is why Reid proposed a socialist ideal for a socialist plot 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). Reid thought that destitute Americans were strong-willed and capable of self-efficacy (Reid 253). The pension system would ravage wage earners and force them to demand for higher salaries, which would reduce the amount earned by paupers for their pensions and discourage financially sound saving habits (Baldwin 724). Vagrancy laws treated homeless individuals like criminals (Ward 31).
By 1924, the concept of a living wage had sparked intense discussions. Labor organizations argued for fair wages exceeding the bare minimum, while statisticians countered that a universal minimum wage would cripple the nation's finances (Cowdrick 316). President Herbert Hoover declared in 1931, in the beginnings of the Great Depression, that “individual initiative and community response” would dig the nation out of its hole, but this placed the federal government in a position of negligent sovereignty over its population, which had to bear the onus of the economic crisis (Sheppard 37). Rather than reducing poverty, Hoover compounded it by inadvertently creating a community of amateur economists who were inexperienced in resolving national financial emergencies (Sheppard 37). While their mission was honorable, the government should have been answering the tough questions, not its victims (Sheppard 37).
In 1948, after the dust settled from World War II, Fortune Magazine surveyed business executives, most of whom affirmed that businesses needed to collaborate on eliminating chronic unemployment nationwide while resenting the notions of the government providing pensions, job insurance, and free or discounted medical care programs (Leathers 35). Laborers expressed confidence in retaining their current jobs during peacetime because working conditions would continue to improve and expand, as long as private enterprises controlled industrial development; they favored job security over increased salaries (Leathers 35-36). Managers likewise agreed that private entities would handle unemployment better than the federal government, despite their approval of the New Deal (Leathers 37). To prevent an onslaught of unemployment, politicians proposed that plants which had manufactured airplanes and raw materials such as rubber and aluminum should be sold or repurposed for private enterprises so that the government could expend less funds on their maintenance; war contracts needed to be gradually nullified and any debts needed to be reversed immediately in order to fund the millions of dollars that it would cost to shift surplus inventory (Leathers 52).
Criminal Status:
It took several years for corruption to unfold as southern states conducted employment leasing programs for Black convicts in the 1870s; once they extended their reach to white convicts, only then did the southern population protest this acquisitive exploit (Mohler 563). Legal verbiage qualified the lessees to possess “the power to punish crime by hard labor,” and the public, including the northern states which had finally ascertained this information as a consequence of soldier and novelist George W Cable having published a book called The Silent South in 1885, was appalled at the audacity of these organizations submitting white convicts to such spadework (Mohler 563-564). One letter to the editor of this column from Science in 1886 concurred with the Illinois governor from seventeen years into the future by stating that convict labor undertook “unfair and injurious” competition with free labor (Science 68). The author then countered this with statistics from 1879 proving that the 46% of convict laborers working in skilled factory positions were only competing with employees within the same widespread national industry; therefore, this did not tarnish the reputation of free state labor (Science 68). This was when the ULP advocated for keeping convict labor in prisons with more sanitary living conditions (Topeka Post 2). I wonder if this ideology flew in the face of free labor. Unions were against prison labor because it competed with free labor, but Denson said that the unions should have considered the idea that prisoners were living off the work of free laborers rather than contributing to production (Denson 113). Denson argued that the ratio of prisoners to free laborers was trivial and did not threaten the status quo (Denson 114). Additionally, it seemed to contradict the philosophy of unions to prevent anyone from working (Denson 114). Denson was aware of how powerful this relatively new dawn of unionism could be for bettering American living standards, whether with benevolent or evil intentions, and he hoped that they would gravitate toward the former (Denson 115). Other entities, such as the state of Georgia, were against criminals working indoors because of the danger of stale air, while Virginia had convicts, Black and white, male and female, working together at a shoe factory outside of the prison walls (Longino 175). In the shoe factory, convicts earned up to $2,000 per month in overtime pay working within massive cells with petroleum heating and lighting; they reported a death rate of only 0.51% in these conditions (Longino 176). With their sustainable outplacement program, Georgia prisons agreed to sell as much as 88% of their convict labor to “private manufacturers and mine operators,” with the state managing administrative tasks and funding their school districts and private contractors providing the prisoners with food and shelter (Longino 176). Worse was the leasing system of contractual convict labor, the most profitable of all, which relinquished all employee responsibility from the wardens, and even the state, to the outside contractors (Mohler 551). Despite the clean open environment, contractors exploited the system to corporally punish and beat convicts who did not transcend their standards while underpaying them; they also openly discriminated by class, race, and sexuality (Mohler 552). Efforts had been made in the 1900s to abolish this leasing system due to the blatant neglect of equitable and reasonable labor practices such as underpayment, the resale of products, balanced scheduling, and callous contractors (Mohler 581). In 1909, Ernest Stagg Whitin established the National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor, but left debates about rehabilitative praxis to legislators rather than managing that aspect themselves (Mohler 584). Legislators unanimously derided the abuse of prisoners under both the contract and leasing systems of convict employment (Mohler 584). The piece-price system did not authorize contractors to manage convicts, but rather state officials who prioritized rehabilitation and skill development over profitable products (Edwards 246).
There existed 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 payment (Edwards 234). Despite this, contractors properly competed with the state to maintain high prices and make a profit (Edwards 241). 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). Contractors provided a more lucrative and reliable system for the state, yet the competition with free labor manufacturers substituted abusive profitability for rehabilitation (Mohler 550). An editorialist commented that the community of Illinois generally supported convict labor because it was “the only class of public institution that ever [did] or ever [could] contribute to its own support” (Longino 176). However, the governor thought that convict labor opposed the free labor of the state (Longino 176). In New York and Minnesota, scholars believed that funneling state sponsored industrialization into prisons encumbered taxpayers (Longino 176). Denson added that rehabilitation bred responsibility and motivation for living a better life, and that labor should have replaced fixed sentence terms (Denson 45). A mere sliver of this profit went toward the convicts, if at all, as the products, such as brooms, twine, furniture, and farming and mining tools, were cheaply engineered and could not sell in competition with similar products from the free labor market (Mohler 549). When profitability declined, the wardens laid off masses of convicts in total disregard of perennial factory standards (Mohler 549). Despite their experience in security and management, these wardens were not businessmen, instituting inefficient supervision of everything outside of keeping convicts in line (Mohler 548-549). Part of that salary should have been designated to the families, guardians, and supporters of convicts, who are human beings after all (Denson 46). However profitable contractual prison labor was for any state, without the supervision of guards over the contractor, the warden could not place prisoners in their proper industries based on their skills (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 a counterbalance of free competition (Edwards 236). Denson believed that depriving convicts of their employment prospects was, in a word, “barbarous” and only strained civilian taxation (Denson 44). Imprisonment only managed to desiccate any fears of authority and, upon release, instigate more criminal activity (Denson 123). Some convicts with more diverse criminal pasts were kept in prison for as long as their sentencing would have allowed, and when they were finally released into the parole system, they were left unsupervised (Kuharich 9). Prison employment or training programs made it more likely for parolees to reverse this negative attitude and procure stable employment; administrators dreamt that all paroled inmates would be there for a short period so that they would not have to relay the responsibility to another institution (Long 59). Treatment of mental deficiencies was the first step toward the reduction of criminal activity (Denson 124). Lack of work awakened criminal regression and prison time killed any remaining spirit for life in convicts, which only exacerbated this tendency (Denson 44). Most convict laborers were unskilled and it was expensive to train them, yet contractors were incentivized to keep them consistently employed for upwards of five years to compensate for their expenses, regardless of the state of the trade in the outside market (Edwards 242). Even for the worst offenders who were sent to stricter prisons, labor toward earning retribution was the most humane option (Denson 143). States like Oregon and Colorado initiated honor systems under which prisoners did road work within strictly outlined boundaries (Mohler 585-586). In 1923, the committee was designing a new system called the states’ use system, which meted out the production of certain goods for institutional and governmental use to different states (Mohler 587). These solutions attempted to mollify the damages done to convicts in the recent past.
The wisdom of 1941 held that most convicts were oblivious to the reasons behind their imprisonment (K Wilson 21). Wilson had responded to a letter penned by convict Walter Robert Avery which, in summary, stated that criminals have substantial difficulties obtaining employment because of the stigma of criminality (Avery 21). Many parolees were restricted from employment by the military defense forces due to that stigma (Waite 30). Avery wrote that freed convicts were left in a sorry state upon release; they resorted to theft when their starvation crumpled them and their paid debt to society did not suffice their communities, which still slung discriminatory words at them (Avery 21). Wilson argued that, actually, they stole in order to gratify their entrenched fears and frustrations, inadvertently expressed in the form of “certain tensions and distorted attitudes” (K Wilson 21). Further, to fill a void of life purpose, theft subsidized their incomes to recompense their impaired work habits (K Wilson 21). Spiro thought that 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). Avery would have responded that criminals generally learned through trial and error that honest employment was more fulfilling than criminal acts (Avery 21). Americans were so loyal to a defunct adage, “once a thief, always a thief,” that they ignored the distress of parolees searching for rehabilitation (Avery 21). Their best bet was to procure a job through a relative or a close friend (Avery 21). Families and friends of released convicts, along with social agencies, secured menial jobs to at least get them started, but with strict supervision by law enforcement to prevent frequent job hopping (Kuharich 9). Within their first month of freedom, ex-convicts had to make or break their rehabilitation strategies; meanwhile, their supervising officers ought to have remembered that “any man, regardless of race, color, religion, or prior record, has the right to [their] wholehearted assistance if he seems sincere in his desire to locate worthwhile employment and lead a law-abiding life” (Kuharich 16). According to Kuharich, petty offenders did not flounder on their job hunts, as in a typical economic state they were able to encounter a fair amount of employers who did not prod into their past too deeply (Kuharich 10). In contrast, Wilson, in his experience, had discovered that criminals typically retained their jobs for a while and were rarely fired unless they had actively rebelled against their parole officers, especially considering that they were supposed to have already been employed by them in prison (K Wilson 21). Many stereotypical presumptions prevailed among employers; ex-convicts were mentally unstable; they would not insure them to do anything beyond menial labor, even if they had already been certified in fields such as law or education (Kuharich 39-40). Additionally, it was sometimes a security violation to hire ex-convicts, even when they had acknowledged their parole or probationary statuses (Kuharich 39). Employees understandably felt uncomfortable working around ex-convicts, but this was a judgmental perspective (Kuharich 40). Some employers were eager to hire ex-convicts after thoroughly scrutinizing their records (Kuharich 41). Union leaders did not hesitate to hire ex-convicts who had committed only a felony, as long as they met their requirements and paid their dues (Kuharich 17). If they did not have the money to pay their dues, then their supervising officers urged the unions to give them thirty days to earn it before they paid (Kuharich 17). The ex-convicts sometimes exhibited intransigent behaviors because they thought that they would not be hired anyway, but on the off chance that an employer would have hired them irrespective of their recent past, they still would have been denied employment because of their inability to adhere to scheduled policies and procedures (Kuharich 11). Avery claimed that crime was a tough recourse for parolees in their rehabilitation because of constant victimization, yet sternly warned that “if an ex-convict asks for bread and you give him a stone, don’t be surprised if he hurls it back at you” (Avery 21). The Works Progress Administration (WPA), a byproduct of the New Deal, repressed parolee employment because of this incredulity (Avery 21). One prison administrator remarked that they should not have been shocked to see prostitutes and criminals return to their cells after release “onto the streets, with no money, no job, no home, no place to sleep” (Waite 31). Wilson retorted that while some states enforced subpar supervision over parolees because of insatiable caseloads, most parole officers did manage reasonable parolee populations (K Wilson 21). Imprisonment taxed the economy, so naturally, thought Avery, a more positive view of parolee rehabilitation would defer future financial losses since criminals had learned all the machinations of the judicial system to the point of utter distrust on both sides of the court (Avery 21). Despite the struggles endured by parolees upon release from prison, several states, as of 1945 (Long 59), required them to find a job in order to graduate from parole altogether (Long 58). Perhaps the most frightening reality for employers was that people did not have to resemble the classic caricature of criminals as broadcast in cinemas to be a threat, as they could only try to prevent the ubiquitous criminal from entering their establishments (Long 58). Regardless, employers may have preferred parolees if they knew that the business could profit from their employment (Long 58).
It was easier for discharged criminals who had eluded the parole process to find employment as long as they covertly hid their criminal background in their application blanks (Long 58). Parole and probation officers shared the responsibility of furnishing documentation and casting for employment vacancies without prejudice or bias toward particular outcomes, keeping in constant close contact with employment agencies and scheduling interviews (Kuharich 15-16). Much of the time, offices were encouraged to join unions and community councils in order to network for their respective convicts (Kuharich 18). Taxpayers saved one thousand dollars per year by 1953 (today: $11,500) on parolees over inmates because they paid their own taxes with their paychecks (Long 58). If they worked for a factory, they were given their paychecks upon release (Kuharich 10). This benefit had its limit, as indefinite release from parole drained more tax money and deprived parolees of any appreciation for honest labor, thereby crushing their morale (Long 58). Often the only resource available to parolees was the generosity of the community, which obviously abated in the presence of parolees (Waite 31). The government, in its honest attempt to fill vacancies with former criminals, apathetically placed them into any job they could find (Spiro 26). Convicts of sound mind and body were compelled to scout steady employment immediately upon release, preferably with the assistance of job placement agencies (Kuharich 12). Parolees had to already have been employed prior to release so that they could assimilate into the habit of employment (Kuharich 12). Parolees dealt with stipulations requiring them to request express permission to travel to a different geographical location to secure a job, and by the time this bureaucratic procedure ran its course, the vacancy was most likely occupied by another candidate (Spiro 52). The solution seemed to be counseling and financial assistance (Spiro 25-26). They needed to have in mind answers for their interviews and employment application blanks in order to find their best matching employment opportunities, along with their own questions about salaries, schedules, location, and other administrative housekeeping items (Kuharich 15). It was in the best interest of taxpayers for certain reluctant parolees to be supervised on this job search (Kuharich 12). This way, their transition into the public sphere would be smoother and cause less social rifts (Kuharich 15). Surety bonds further disheartened employers from hiring them and assuming the risk, namely for white-collar jobs (Spiro 30-31).
While criminals would receive equal employment opportunities in 1964, two years prior to that, scholars Richard Schwartz and Jerome Skolnick studied the legal stigma of convict labor in a field experiment (Schwartz and Skolnick 134). They fabricated a dummy profile of the median applicant in the Catskills area of New York City on four employment application blanks: one indicated that this man had been convicted and sentenced for assault, another acquitted him, another proved his innocence, and the last one acted as the control (Schwartz and Skolnick 134). Since they did not christen this specter with a name, I will call him Liam. Under the guise of a legitimate employment agency, they evenly dispersed these blanks to one hundred employers; sometimes they upped the ante by calling the employers back to recount how Liam had already filled a different position (Schwartz and Skolnick 135). Within the control group, 36% of the employers would have hired Liam (Schwartz and Skolnick 135). When employers were under the impression that Liam was a sentenced convict seeking rehabilitative employment, 4% of them would have taken Liam under their wing (Schwartz and Skolnick 136). This was sobering to the researchers, as convicts facing chronic unemployment were more likely to regress to their criminal ways because they were pariahs (Schwartz and Skolnick 136). Of the employers who learned of an acquitted Liam, 12% would have employed him 136). While the American legal system did differentiate between acquitted and sentenced criminals, it still routinely treated acquitted individuals as criminals, further defacing their social outlooks (Schwartz and Skolnick 137). Regardless, 24% of the employers would have hired the acquitted version of Liam thanks to a doctored certificate of innocence (Schwartz and Skolnick 137).
Veteran Status:
Veterans would not get a taste of equal employment rights until 1974, but even 118 years prior to that, in 1856, veteran soldiers were ostracized (Chelmsford Chronicle 3). Because they had been so accustomed to their military routines, most veterans felt discouraged from applying for civilian employment (Chelmsford Chronicle 3). Soon veterans exhausted their pensions and became impoverished nuisances (Chelmsford Chronicle 3). One columnist emphasized that there were still plenty of employment opportunities for veterans, although he did not specify any in particular (Chelmsford Chronicle 3).
In 1885, the Boston General Court answered that call, advancing a civil statute which would improve the interviewing process for veterans through additional examinations and questionnaires; there were no acts of favoritism or unjust rejections of employment for relieved soldiers (G Robinson 5). Examinations differed depending upon the occupation; clerical applicants experienced different questions from applicants for jobs involving physical labor (G Robinson 5). A fraction of veterans reported irrelevant questions; however, one particular rumor that surfaced which Robinson tried to suppress is that able-bodied veterans were neglected in this measure (G Robinson 5). The passage of this law risked veterans securing jobs without having filed a record of their military contributions; they were just as rebellious as their employers defying these new rules because they overrode their own selfish policies (G Robinson 5). To Robinson, there was no difference between a disabled and able-bodied veteran soldier, except that the United States government favored disabled veterans while Boston and New York preferred the success of all veterans in finding civil employment (G Robinson 5). All veterans matter? Veterans of any age were likely to perform better at these examinations than civilians and therefore had a better shot at getting a civilian job, despite the fact that, in reality, most veterans did not actually want one (G Robinson 5). As it was, there were limited openings available, and this bill neither changed how veterans found jobs nor affected their stance on access to public jobs in municipalities wherein the governor decided who got hired (G Robinson 5).
We shall leap to World War I, which ended before the United States could consummate its plans to “provide buffer employment” for its soldiers in the event of a peace treaty (Howenstine 185). Despite this setback, postwar propositions for veteran employment included construction, land settlement, railroad renovation, and public works (Howenstine 185). President Woodrow Wilson had already been pushing for a federal nationwide construction program which employed members of “lower divisions of government, individuals, and corporations,” yet this proved to be too lofty of a diversion for a government that was in the middle of expansion (Howenstine 185). Two subsequent programs promised house construction and repair jobs for veterans, but both failed to thrive (Howenstine 185). The first national efforts for vocational rehabilitation for disabled soldiers took shape in the form of the Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937, but veterans did not receive enough compensation to feed themselves sufficiently (Henderson and Francis 273). After World War II, in 1943, Public Law 113 greatly expanded vocational rehabilitation and had the federal government pay for housing and medical appointments for these veterans and opened services to individuals with mental disabilities as well (Henderson and Francis 273).
The National Resources Planning Board was shuttered in 1943, during World War II when a new slew of veterans would need jobs at home (Howenstine 186). More employers were likely to have denied veterans employment because of their antiheroic status and the fact that it did not cost the employer anything extravagant to acquire someone different (Graves 77-78). Likewise, research showed that veterans who had been in the service for a long time would be less likely to accept civil work unless their salaries were hiked to complement their contributions to defending the country (Howenstine 186). There remained the possibility that veterans could have gotten rehired, if only they had legal protection for their right to request that job back and the position had not evolved too much during the course of the war due to industrial advancements (Howenstine 186). To prevent an onslaught of unemployment, politicians proposed that plants which had manufactured airplanes and raw materials such as rubber and aluminum should be sold or repurposed for private enterprises so that the government could expend less funds on their maintenance; war contracts needed to be gradually nullified and any debts needed to be reversed immediately in order to fund the millions of dollars that it would cost to shift surplus inventory (Leathers 52). Luckily, Americans longed for goods, the production of which had been impeded during the war, alongside the apparatuses which preserved or contained them; this was a golden opportunity for manufacturers to hire veterans for those means (Leathers 55). In 1945, Helen Baker charged that if employers were earnest about hiring disabled veterans, then they ought to have made reasonable contributions toward rehabilitating physically disabled veterans in order to improve their wellbeing and considered whether they deserved certain advantages during labor shortages (Baker 129). Baker argued that employers needed to outline the job requirements and respective skills to the veterans in order to maximize their talents and minimize hiring bias (Baker 130). Large businesses hired psychiatrists to aid with the occupational rehabilitation process, yet small employers were only willing to hire and apply additional accommodations and policy revisions toward former employees, excluding disabled veterans (Baker 129-130). These managers assigned them comparable quotas, but they had to start from square one with their pay rates unless their union intervened (Baker 129). Supervisors shared with foremen the responsibility of checking in on disabled veteran employees occasionally to survey their assimilation and ascertain their proficiency in various workplace tasks (Baker 131). In spite of the necessity for easier hiring practices in peacetime, employers expected candidates to possess “unusual qualifications of aptitude” (Leathers 82). Skilled trade employment was sparse because unions could not agree on the proper training for those candidates (Leathers 82). Unions did negotiate with employers to lift disabled veterans higher in seniority and schedule them into more preferable shifts, yet this did not equate to protection from downgrading (Baker 129). Leathers advocated for a work sharing program to substitute seniority policies in order to enable younger veterans and candidates “to maintain their morale, work habits, and special skills” along with a separate pay scale for adults and adolescents (Leathers 83). She also supported training programs aimed at youth and adolescents in public works such as construction and contracting (Leathers 90). Other postwar employment readjustment programs were deliberated upon, such as government projects in soil conservation and local community cooperation in hiring veterans as farmhands or clerks (Leathers 48). Assessments, according to Baker, needed to reflect the aptitudes and personalities of veteran applicants regardless of whether interviews were conducted by specialized veterans divisions (Baker 131).
The Selective Service Act of 1948 (SSA) stipulated that within ninety days of their discharge from military service, applicants reapplying to their prior positions for both federal and private businesses were certain to be reinstated as long as the employer or business did not radically change during the outbreak of the Korean War, which endured from 1950 to 1953 (Graves 76). This clause applied to “inductees, enlistees, and reservists who [had] entered upon active duty” upon or after the start of the Korean War, not beforehand (Graves 76-77). If veterans were disabled from their war activities, then employers following the SSA had to accommodate them with an approximately congruent position for which they were qualified with or without extra training (Graves 81). If a business had changed ownership in the absence of the veteran, the veteran still reserved the right to be rehired under the pretense that the new owner was a “successor in interest” (Graves 80). Under certain circumstances, factory workers were legally defined as temporary workers who would not have benefitted from the provision unlike consistent seasonal employees (Graves 79). Similarly, veterans who had enlisted after the establishment of the SSA were no longer insured by the measure if they reenlisted (Graves 82). Employers tried to evade these SSA provisions by requiring veterans to apply to places outside a certain radius from their own business (Graves 80). They had to explicitly express any and all reasoning behind terminating veterans after their rehiring process, as veterans were to be treated equally to any other undesirable employees (Graves 84). Lawyers debated the definition of when a job would be unreasonable for the return of a previous employee who happened to become a war veteran; while courts generally favored the veteran in cases of employment discrimination revolving around this verbiage, the ambiguity of the word “unreasonable” allowed employers to devise reasons that could win them back endorsement from the judge (Graves 77). The SSA of 1948 was hazy on its coverage of employers who unionized during the war and therefore required all new or rehired employees to join their union to secure employment (Graves 84). I may assume, without possession of a law degree, that outside of those nine months, employers could have resumed discriminating against veterans longing to be rehired because the emotional anguish felt over the plight of veterans began to diminish by the end of the war (Graves 85). At that point, veterans were assimilated into the civilian world, subject to the scrutiny of employers who could fabricate reasons for their rejection.
Discrimination resulted from the stereotype that veterans were authoritarian, inflexible, and, in the aftermath of World War II, fascist or far-right in personality (McBride 5). Veterans confronted stigma not only from their supposed betrayal of the American population, but also through publicly leaked separation program numbers which further characterized negative qualities like “ineptitude, unclean habits, antisocial personality, drug addiction,” and more (Betts 35). Luckily, they could appeal any detrimental employment decisions to their respective review boards (Betts 35). Private telephone companies in the United States did not want to hire veterans who had worked as linemen, switchboard repairmen, installers, and more (Weinstein 33-34). Despite this, retirees with military backgrounds in technology, communications, and electronics scored more lucrative second careers than did those with experience in inferior military positions such as administration, maintenance, and miscellaneous personnel (McBride 5). McBride argued that despite possessing valuable technical skills, resilience, and social adaptability honed through military service, veteran retirees faced challenges securing federal employment (McBride 1). Sometimes, in the military, candidates were trained on specific tasks that had no facsimile to jobs within the private sector (Weinstein 134-135). This system was designed to prevent discharged veterans from competing with civilian employees in the same field, as they could only perform these specific tasks outside of the country, so federal employment was an unlikely possibility (Weinstein 34; 107). Civilian jobs were predetermined for army veterans; some of these included ones that they had had prior to their draft (Weinstein 74); it was the reverse for navy veterans (Weinstein 61). A Columbia University study highlighted that military service often afforded them a superior education compared to their civilian counterparts (McBride 4). James L. Reynolds, the Assistant Secretary of Labor in 1962, emphasized the breadth of their skillset, rivaling that of private industry, and advocated for their integration into the civilian workforce as specialized individuals, not simply veterans (McBride 5). Personal experience did not guarantee eligibility for a degree. Fortunately, young veterans could also attend vocational colleges in order to harness their skills and experiences into viable career paths (Betts 5). Lee Betts added that curricula needed to be individualized to accommodate for personal cultural experiences that could identify them with appropriate employment opportunities while incorporating written and verbal skills (Betts 22-23). When they did find employment, they may have joined the queue of the referral system through which veterans recommended one another if they themselves quit or got laid off (Betts 31). Community agencies assisted young veterans in securing part-time jobs, which were necessary for financial stability (Betts 7). Dedicated programs such as American Legion, American Veterans Center, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, proved to be effective at counseling veterans to provision them with job interviews, loans, housing, and other accommodations even after veterans rejected their pleas because of their heightened standards of following up at more convenient times (Betts 15). These services pursued as many classes of veterans as possible, as in the early 1970s, veterans who were not Caucasian were ousted from the civilian job market considerably more often than their white counterparts (Betts 2). As of 1952, though, veterans were in decent standing; since 1944, three million veterans had been granted loans for homes, farmland, and their own businesses, nine million were eligible for unemployment benefits, and almost eight million got educated and trained with help from new laws (Harrison 1). In 1954, Public Law 565 extended vocational rehabilitation services to a greater range of physically and mentally disabled clients (Henderson and Francis 273). By 1963, one quarter of one percent of the workers in the armed forces were women (Higgins 24). In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that veterans returning from service into skilled labor on the homefront had the right to work at their prior seniority ranking or jump to the top “since their promotions were foreseeable as reasonably certain at the time of entering service” (Monthly Labor Review 1964 437). Employers were to behave as if the veteran employee had been continually training with them during their service (Monthly Labor Review 1964 437).
By 1965, the military had become a permanent presence rather than a reserved resource (McBride 1). The veteran retirement rate was unprecedented; veterans retired before the age of fifty during an era when (McBride 1). Veteran retirement funds were unsatisfactory; civilian unemployment and social seclusion would haunt these educated, mature individuals upon retirement from the military (McBride 1-2). They faced a pay drop of more than 50%, exposing them to unparalleled employment and domestic insecurities (McBride 3). Most preferred sales or local government positions, while a considerable amount transitioned into hospitals and schools (McBride 6). This aligned with the availability of comprehensive employment rehabilitation programs preparing them for filling the federal vacancies amidst high turnover rates, along with other competitive opportunities (McBride 8). In response in the 1970s, the United States Office of Education (later the Department of Education) recommended in a somewhat endearing manner for counseling outreach programs that, for instance, phone conversations worked better than letters because of the African oral tradition still subconsciously swimming through the blood of Black veterans (Betts 21). Certainly, openings and training varied by state, yet the nation was intent on reversing the endemic of unemployment (McBride 8-9). In Hawaii in 1971, for instance, veterans and destitute civilians were favored for environmental public service projects over other candidates (Ruhig et al 23). The governor recommended that the state of Hawaii would be inclined to further fund the public service jobs program whenever unemployment rates exceeded 4.5%, especially for the benefit of veterans and destitute civilians (Ruhig et al 23). By 1971, the state was interested in hiring disabled veterans over all others, yet by preference, World War II veterans ranked the highest, followed by those who had fought in Vietnam and Korea (Ruhig et al 43-44). However, by 1972, only 10% of disabled Vietnam veterans receiving benefits “were placed in jobs of 150 days or more” (Betts 33).
1974 was the year for veterans, but the Department of Labor preceded the measure with a document calling out the employment discrimination long faced by disabled veterans (Wilson & Richards 25). Surveyed veterans recalled that upon interviews, their potential supervisors or managers did not often directly mention their disabilities, but when they did, they became an insurance liability (Wilson & Richards 26). Their physical ailments would hold them back too much, or the employer ran a system of seniority and prioritized the most loyal employees first and foremost, which in itself was another breed of discrimination (Wilson & Richards 27). Even when employers were eager to hire disabled veterans, their employment codes did not properly define their accommodations (Wilson & Richards 27). Flexible schedules and specialized assignments made these employers apprehensive when there had already been few matching positions anyway (Wilson & Richards 28; 30). The authors contended that employers needed to stop placing all disabled hires into the same slot; this could have been done with a profile assessment which grades candidates based on their actual capabilities (Wilson & Richards 30). Were these employment and outreach programs effective? By late 1974, young Vietnam veterans had a 6.4% unemployment rate, but this was still less than that of civilian men in the same age group of 20-24, which was 7.3% (Flaim 13). This rate was predicted to decrease as the veterans aged out of this demographic which had historically suffered from high rates of unemployment (Flaim 13). Unfortunately, 12% of all Black Vietnam veterans were still unemployed (Flaim 13).
Disability:
In 1879, Eaton Jr. believed in education for disabled and able-bodied folk alike, with positive, customized activities designed to promote healthy habits and eradicate indolence (Eaton Jr. CLXX). Likewise, in 1901, the Birmingham After-Care Committee opened its doors to the luxurious education of “feeble-minded” children (Pinsent 845). The purpose of this committee was to determine how to remedy the potentially dangerous social presence of “the mentally defective” and their offspring (Pinsent 845). Hume Pinsent believed that since the counselors did not visit these children at home on a daily basis, their care and instruction was ineffective since their parents were likely just as mentally deficient either naturally or as a result of alcoholism (Pinsent 845). They estimated that few of those students would thrive individually in the professional world while the others would be perpetually dependent on counselors and specialized educators (Pinsent 845). As of 1905, only 31% of these children were persistently employed, yet their salary decreased gradually because employers did not account for the dipping value of the trade market (Pinsent 845). Fueled by dissatisfaction with the existing pension plan in 1907, over 6,000 Chicago school teachers and administrators rallied for revisions (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). The current system, basing contributions on a flat 1% of salary with no additional benefits for at least 20 years, disproportionately burdened higher earners while offering minimal early rewards (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). This, coupled with gender-based disparities, resulted in male teachers receiving only 30% of their promised benefits due to fund instability and reduced maximum payouts (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). Such inequities discouraged new teachers from contributing to the system, further jeopardizing its sustainability (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). Seeking fairness and inclusivity, the protesters advocated for a revised plan that treated all teachers equally, regardless of sex, salary, or physical abilities (Chicago Daily Tribune 8). Notably, even the superintendent endorsed the proposed bill, recognizing its potential to boost morale and attract talent to the Chicago school system (Chicago Daily Tribune 8).
In 1920, Congress passed the Smith-Fess act to “provide for the promotion of vocational rehabilitation of persons disabled in industry or otherwise and their return to civil employment” (Carr 139). In 1922, Kentucky was the first state to adapt this act into a program (Carr 140). Walter Scott advocated in 1921 for physical examinations of candidates so that employers did not inadvertently injure candidates with physical disabilities (Scott 15). This measure would have prepared candidates for all possible safety concerns that would have prompted them to reconsider their applications (Scott 16). Unions warned that employers could exploit the slightest negativities of the results of physical examinations to discriminate against candidates in whom they saw a vulnerability (Scott 16-17). Some jobs could be safely performed by candidates with disabilities which did not hinder their daily lives (Scott 21). After the tedious process of securing a safe job, candidates with disabilities generally formed “highly stable and dependable” groups (Scott 22). A study showed that employees who had struggled academically were the least satisfied with their jobs if they worked in the manufacturing of tools (Scott 75). Meanwhile, those who inspected castings reported that they were less satisfied with the job than those with intellectual disabilities (Scott 75). Employees with intellectual disabilities could persevere in their positions for a long time, or for the entirety of their employment, before losing interest (Scott 77). 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), thought about 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 approach did not aid the average disabled citizen (Berkowitz 216).
In 1945, federal education specialist Elise H. Martens reverently proclaimed that the world would be a desolate place without people with an intelligence quotient below 75 (Keefe 15). She advocated for mentally impaired youth to aspire toward hands-on jobs which would blossom their employability and sociability (Keefe 15). Author Annie Dolman Inskeep concurred that handiwork projects promoted mental acuity and social coordination (Keefe 16). Students engaged with these activities would form deeper relationships, harness physical awareness, acquire domestic skills, and familiarize themselves with the practicalities of their surroundings (Keefe 17). Physical fitness and “the development and maintenance of a healthy physique” were a plus (Keefe 115). Those projects ought to have buttressed responsibility, punctuality, confidence, and motor skills (Keefe 16). Research found that these tasks required little to no educational prerequisite, so disabled employees could jump into the task headlong (Keefe 25). In 1946, quotas were finally given precedence by a theoretical Commission for the Physically Handicapped, from the mind of Alabama senator John Sparkman; under his provision, 2% of federal employees, qualified for low-interest loans under the right circumstances, would have had to be disabled (Berkowitz 217). As a consequence, federal employers would need to integrate architectural accessibility to their buildings (Berkowitz 217). The FSA alleged that the DOL was using disabled employees as political pawns and shrugged off the medical and social services that the disabled community really needed, so this social insurance bill was soon scrapped (Berkowitz 217-218). Regardless, there were a handful of places where minor disabled students could legally work, including markets, laundromats, gas stations, and farms (Keefe 117). Educators were beginning to catch on to the notion that not all disabled students possessed equal mechanical and tactile abilities; students that they had neglected or dismissed could have become “competent tradesmen” under their custody (Keefe 17). More schools incorporated technical courses designed to teach developmentally struggling students the skills necessary for industrial labor and other skilled professions and designed inclusive courses (Keefe 18). One educator, Hilda May Hopkinson, declared that an employee proficient in one particular technical skill may have been a better asset for a factory than a cross-trained employee who saw the same task as merely a tutorial for various elaborate tasks (Keefe 22). However, the redundancy of the tasks could prove to psychologically regress rather than progress the employees if they were not preferable or enjoyable (Carr 142). These courses inhibited the practice of job hopping because these students could now boast their experiences to employers who could authentically discern their capabilities and, in turn, fill the appropriate vacancies (Keefe 21). After some amendments to the Smith-Fess act in 1943, the entire United States vowed to start their own programs (Carr 139). By 1946, the measure had culminated into a social security program under the Federal Security Agency and the Department of Education (Carr 139). Employable candidates with “remediable” disabilities who could not afford to afford their own job hunts were eligible for these programs (Carr 140). The program offered diagnosis, counseling, prosthetics if need be, training, transportation, and of course placement (Carr 140). Subsidized sheltered workshops designated non-competitive labor, like sorting and piling, for chronically ill candidates who were not eligible for the federal program (Carr 141; 142).
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 figured that this would cause a stir, the FSA compromised and collaborated on one disability question on a similar population survey (Berkowitz 213). When the DOL tried that same initial strategy and were met with the same reaction, the FSA decided not to divulge the population of disabled Americans which they had aggregated from their study (Berkowitz 213). In 1953, E MacLaughlin, chairman of the Buffalo Rehabilitation Council, distinguished between disability and physical handicaps in relation to earning power (McLaughlin 16). He did not want physical handicaps to be conflated with disabilities, or the lack of ability to be as productive as able-bodied employees as a result of the physical handicap hindering their livelihood, as people with physical handicaps still possessed the capability to be trained back into earning for themselves through physical therapy (McLaughlin 16). I would infer that if these employers did not understand this, then they would not have been able to accommodate these applicants anyway. This clarification served as a statement against the lingering stereotype that disabled applicants were unproductive and deficient. In 1954, the Smith-Fess act extended vocational rehabilitation services to a greater range of physically and mentally disabled clients (Henderson and Francis 273). A 1954 report from the President’s Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped stated that current safety programs were insufficient in keeping handicapped employees safe; they required more medical vigilance, but it was obviously improbable for small business owners to hire a medical professional for every employee to retain equitable employment standards (Monthly Labor Review 1954 1117). Contrary to the pretense behind enacting these stricter work safety programs, handicapped workers were safer and more self-aware than their able-bodied colleagues; however, safety personnel were financial assets for employers who could afford them because they also imbued safer mindsets into able-bodied workers (Monthly Labor Review 1954 1117). This record, along with more humane employee acquisition protocols, may have contributed to the influx of physically disabled employees which ushered in the revision of contemporary worker compensation laws (Monthly Labor Review 1954 1118). The committee advocated for the expansion of employer injury and compensation funds to certify that they would not have to pay the entire sum of employee injury claims (Monthly Labor Review 1954 1118). Protocols needed to verify that injuries were legitimately consequential enough to qualify the claimants for these funds (Monthly Labor Review 1954 1118). Employers complained that it was unfair for them to have to pay for flare-ups of chronic conditions that were normally benign, such as tuberculosis or heart disease; if they acted up while the employee was on the floor and they recovered at home, then the company still had to pay for the compensation (Monthly Labor Review 1954 1118).
In 1962, the National Institutes of Health educated American citizens and employers on why and how to hire deaf applicants (Henderson and Francis 242). Local employers began to forgo the term “disabled” in favor of the more inclusive “specially abled,” to encompass their aptitudes (Arpy 3). Advocacy groups of the 1960s propelled a public realization that anybody was capable of learning as long as teachers and students of any ability formed a close enough bond with one another (Wesley 68). Meanwhile, the Office of Education trained educators on how to run special education programs for deaf students (Henderson and Francis 243). In order to qualify for vocational rehabilitation services, applicants had to prove that their handicaps were perceptible enough to legitimately hinder their ability to work, and counselors had to determine whether clients could be teachable; afterward, agents figured out their financial eligibility based on predetermined criteria (Henderson and Francis 275-276). Recent studies had shown that disabled employees were trustworthy, punctual, and highly productive in comparison to their able-bodied peers, but ultimately, it was the employers who determined how well disabled employees would assimilate to modified tasks (Arpy 3). Their peers also shone in response to their thriving handicapped coworkers; morale was a patently vital factor for productivity and collaboration (Arpy 3). To reflect another perspective, rehiring disabled employees boosted company morale and loyalty, and positively reassuring disabled hires and rehires about their inherent dignity contributed to their adjustment (Nagi et al 23). Negative self-worth amplified social mistrust and occupational challenges (Nagi et al 26). Contradictory to previous studies, disabled employees were more likely to commit chronic absenteeism (Nagi et al 24). Many disabled applicants seeking work were dismissed by selective vocational counselors because their conditions were not extrinsic enough (Nagi et al 24). Simultaneously, several factions of employers were afraid of hiring disabled applicants as financial and medical liabilities (Nagi et al 24). Despite this, multiple studies were inconclusive regarding concrete financial struggles for employers; it was mostly a mental anxiety (Nagi et al 27). Counselors guided their clients through filling out employment application blanks, obtaining a Social Security card, and locating employment resources outside of the counselor among other facets of the job hunt (Henderson and Francis 253). They placed much of the responsibility onto their clients to study their career paths diligently; this weeded out those individuals who were not mentally prepared enough to make that decision or be honest about their lack of prior relevant experiences (Henderson and Francis 251-252). Then, placement counselors negotiated for those positions behind the scenes (Henderson and Francis 252). It was common for deaf individuals to reject these employment services because they felt independent enough to secure their own jobs (Henderson and Francis 243). At the same time, many of these individuals did not grow up with a fundamental understanding of their place in the world and became dependent on their vocational counselors who sculpted career paths based on their personality and needs rather than assessments (Henderson and Francis 251-252). However, they may not have realized that employers dismissed the pleas of deaf applicants because not enough of them possessed the proper resources or networks to hire them (Henderson and Francis 244). The size of firms marginally factored into hiring procedures; smaller firms were less prepared to hire disabled workers while larger firms were able to hire physically impaired applicants while being less susceptive to mentally incapacitated or disabled applicants (Nagi et al 30). There was no national standard for accommodating disabled employees, which did legitimately hamper employers from accepting disabled applicants (Nagi et al 28). By the 1970s, though, private employers funded disability benefit packages as well as “sick leave and temporary disability programs” (Berkowitz 220). Soon, more employers incorporated counseling, ergonomics, job modification, and fresh disability policies (Berkowitz 220). Disabled employees were leveraged by both the private and public sectors of disability politics, creating some confusion that inevitably served to preserve the federal definition of disability (Berkowitz 221). Federally funded businesses could not discriminate against “an otherwise qualified handicapped individual” just because of their disability (Berkowitz 221).
As of 1972, approximately 50.4% of the American population with chronic disabilities were unemployed (Nagi et al 22). Various studies conceded to show that less than 50% of patients released from mental institutions and hospitals found stable employment, in coincidence with their diagnoses of schizophrenia, cerebral palsy, and deafness (Nagi et al 22). Most of the time, they were able to return to their previous jobs partially thanks to their employers benefitting from insurance and retirement programs for returning disabled employees (Nagi et al 23). Sheltered workshops were birthed as a practical solution for training disabled individuals for public commercial employment (Berry & Calendar 29). Mirroring a legitimate factory setting while still manufacturing quality products, the workshops represented “a halfway point between hospitals and institutions and the outside world” (Berry & Calendar 29). Even though employment was meant to be temporary in nature, employees could seize opportunities to rise in the ranks to become supervisory personnel (Berry & Calendar 29). Interviewers typically presented themselves as more enthusiastic during the interview process but ultimately did not hire these candidates; their veil of impartiality caught up to them (Nagi et al 25). Although it did not matter whether applicants passed medical examinations, facilities were overzealous about their standards and did not recommend more than 20% of their patients (Nagi et al 28). According to other contemporary studies, approximately 40% of disabled citizens were employed, and if that coincided with the 14% of citizens with chronic conditions which hindered employability, then at worst 5.7% of these Americans were suffering disproportionately to their able-bodied peers (Levitan & Taggart 3). Only 6% of those with severe conditions were employed in full-time positions (Levitan & Taggart 4). Predictably, they were paid a mere fraction as well, which made their loved ones suffer with supplementing “reduced earnings while bearing extra medical and personal care expenses” to the tune of more than $28 billion (today: $142 billion), not including the $1.7 billion expended toward vocational rehabilitation services (today: $8.6 billion) (Levitan & Taggart 3), amounting to $29.7 billion spent in the hopes of assisting disabled individuals (today: $150 billion) (Levitan & Taggart 3).
The Social Security Administration began to refine their strict definition of “disability” to include self-assessment as well as medically determined diagnoses, with shortened minimum durations of palpability; they also attended to the plights of those who resorted to shifting among many jobs as a result of “occupational disability” and “secondary work limitations” founded on the severity of their conditions (Levitan & Taggart 4). By 1975, this definition covered three million working adults (Levitan & Taggart 4). Vocational rehabilitation programs served about half of those (Levitan & Taggart 10). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act defined physical and mental impairments to include disabilities in caring for oneself, walking, sensation, breathing, learning, and performing manual tasks (Law and Contemporary Problems 46). Section 503 required employers to screen out candidates with mental disabilities only for traits that would negatively affect their safety on the job (Law and Contemporary Problems 43). Employers could not ask candidates if they had mental disabilities because Section 504 stipulated that they could only ask if they could perform job functions with or without accommodations or if they could handle “emotionally difficult situations” (Law and Contemporary Problems 43). This was clarified by their definition of “otherwise qualified” candidates who could perform their duties with the proper accommodations (Law and Contemporary Problems 53). In some states, such as Illinois, Oregon, and Michigan, agencies had to submit their ratios of employees with disabilities to ensure affirmative action (Law and Contemporary Problems 45). Unfortunately, the Monmouth Center for Vocational Rehabilitation, ignorant of its name, stripped away any promise of honest rejuvenescence for employees when their superiors paid them at minimum half of minimum wage, ironically, which amounted to only $15, not per day but rather per week (today: $63.57) (Berry & Calendar 29). Most of their employees were mentally disabled in some fashion (Berry & Calendar 29). This sweatshop mentality of paying them merely their bare worth strained the ideals of disabled employees working with their disabled peers in a simulated setting (Berry & Calendar 29). The managers of these employees were stepping the legal line because they had the right to pay them “by the piece,” as well as half of minimum wage when their disabilities slowed their productivity considerably (Berry & Calendar 29). A draft was released for a bill which called for disabled sheltered workshop employees to be paid at the same rate as were standard factory employees per unit produced (Berry & Calendar 29). They already worked regular eight-hour shifts with breaks, and a structure guarded against employees exploiting the maximum production policy inherent in the honor system (Berry & Calendar 29). They claimed to have been hiring these employees because they wanted them to further develop their natural talents, not to satisfy a diversity quota (Berry & Calendar 30). This may check out, since New Jersey could only divvy out $7,272 (today: almost $31,000) to each of their mental health and vocational rehabilitation facilities (Berry & Calendar 30).
The Americans with Disabilities Act would not enter law until 1990, In 1985, though, there were still more jobs suitable for physically and mentally handicapped individuals to hold, including the motley positions of mail clerk, physical therapist aide, deckhand, and candy maker (Wesley 39). To be handicapped meant to be deficient in “three or more of the following areas: self care, learning, mobility, self-direction, economic sufficiency, receptive or expressive language, or capacity for independent living” (Wesley 39). A recent federal law had mandated public educational institutions to open their doors to disabled students; in turn, the general public, namely parents, became more cognizant of the needs of these students (Wesley 39). Intelligence quotients were still reliable employability litmus tests: those with an IQ between 25 and 39 could work in jobs that did not require communication skills and under close supervision, those with an IQ between 40 and 54 were placed into both skilled and unskilled labor, and those with an IQ between 55 and 69 were “generally capable of achieving social and vocational adjustment with adequate training” (Wesley 68). The highest and most common tier of handicapped employees were fit for auxiliary jobs that did not require perfect literacy, if any (Wesley 70). Consequences of minimum wage employment for handicapped individuals, which was the most accessible for this demographic, included the loss of Social Security benefits, Medicaid coverage, and Supplemental Security Income, despite businesses receiving tax breaks as a monetary reward for hiring them (Wesley 70). By the summer of 1990, the United States of America prohibited employment discrimination of physically handicapped individuals (Labor Lawyer 523). Fourteen states did not protect alcoholics or drug abusers from employment discrimination, while three included these traits as handicaps under certain conditions (Labor Lawyer 523).
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.
Comments