Businessman or Robber Baron?
Opinions on Carnegie’s character as a businessman have been varied. Nasaw (2006) points out that while today many of Carnegie’s business activities would today be considered both immoral and possibly illegal, at the time they were not. Bobinski (1969) said "Most biographers attribute Carnegie’s success to his genius for organization, shrewdness of business judgment, ability to select the proper men for the jobs to be done, faith in the United States as a land of business opportunity and growth, and his policy of expanding during the periods of economic depression. A minority of biographers have characterized him as greedy, ruthless, and a cruel taskmaster" (p. 10) Carnegie's companies were certainly involved in their share of scandals, both regarding the products they manufactured and the treatment of employees. During his time as a business tycoon Carnegie was known to break labor strikes and worker’s unions, drive down wages, lower labor costs, and institute grueling 12-hour work days for employees (Nasaw, 2006).
Opinions on Carnegie’s character as a businessman have been varied. Nasaw (2006) points out that while today many of Carnegie’s business activities would today be considered both immoral and possibly illegal, at the time they were not. Bobinski (1969) said "Most biographers attribute Carnegie’s success to his genius for organization, shrewdness of business judgment, ability to select the proper men for the jobs to be done, faith in the United States as a land of business opportunity and growth, and his policy of expanding during the periods of economic depression. A minority of biographers have characterized him as greedy, ruthless, and a cruel taskmaster" (p. 10) Carnegie's companies were certainly involved in their share of scandals, both regarding the products they manufactured and the treatment of employees. During his time as a business tycoon Carnegie was known to break labor strikes and worker’s unions, drive down wages, lower labor costs, and institute grueling 12-hour work days for employees (Nasaw, 2006).
Homestead Strike
The single most disastrous episode of Carnegie’s career was 1892’s Homestead Strike, where members of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers union at Carnegie’s steel mill in Homestead, Pennsylvania went on strike in response to cut wages. Carnegie authorized the plant’s general manager, Henry C. Frick, to manage the situation, which Frick did by calling in the Pinkerton Detective Agency’s private army. The striking workers and the Pinkertons came to blows, ultimately engaging in a 14-hour gunfight which not only ended with the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers union crushed but also left nine workers and three detectives dead (PBS Online, 1999). Carnegie was not directly involved in the skirmish, and the situation upset him deeply. Carnegie, who was in Scotland at the time of the battle and did not find out about the events at Homestead until two days after the fact, recounted in his autobiography, “Nothing I have ever had to meet in all my life, before or since, wounded me so deeply. No pangs remain of any wound received in my business career save that of Homestead” (2006, p. 200). However, the Homestead incident would continue to tarnish Carnegie’s reputation throughout his lifetime, and the fact that the mill boomed after the strike due to the breakup of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers union (Nasaw), undoubtedly lead to later assertions that Carnegie’s financial generosity was made up of ‘tainted money’.
The single most disastrous episode of Carnegie’s career was 1892’s Homestead Strike, where members of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers union at Carnegie’s steel mill in Homestead, Pennsylvania went on strike in response to cut wages. Carnegie authorized the plant’s general manager, Henry C. Frick, to manage the situation, which Frick did by calling in the Pinkerton Detective Agency’s private army. The striking workers and the Pinkertons came to blows, ultimately engaging in a 14-hour gunfight which not only ended with the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers union crushed but also left nine workers and three detectives dead (PBS Online, 1999). Carnegie was not directly involved in the skirmish, and the situation upset him deeply. Carnegie, who was in Scotland at the time of the battle and did not find out about the events at Homestead until two days after the fact, recounted in his autobiography, “Nothing I have ever had to meet in all my life, before or since, wounded me so deeply. No pangs remain of any wound received in my business career save that of Homestead” (2006, p. 200). However, the Homestead incident would continue to tarnish Carnegie’s reputation throughout his lifetime, and the fact that the mill boomed after the strike due to the breakup of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers union (Nasaw), undoubtedly lead to later assertions that Carnegie’s financial generosity was made up of ‘tainted money’.
Was it Worth It?
Despite the controversy following the Homestead Strike and other issues, Bobinski (1969) claims that Carnegie’s business practices regarding his employees were standard for the time and were no worse, and perhaps even better, than those of his fellow industrialists. Nasaw (2006) goes even further, arguing that it was Carnegie’s decision early in life to give the entirety of his wealth away that drove him to do whatever it took to make more money -“Recognizing that the more money he earned, the more he would have to give away, he pushed his partners and his employees relentlessly forward in the pursuit of larger and larger profits” (p. xii-xiii) The question of whether his later generosity atoned for the ‘tainted money’ earned by Carnegie while engaging in ethically questionable business activities and enforcing what would now be considered appalling working conditions was one that many were uncomfortable with (Van Slyck, 1995); however, Carnegie himself apparently had no such qualms. Bobinski quotes Carnegie as saying, in 1914, “…when I go to trial for the things done on earth, I think I’ll get a verdict of “Not Guilty” through my efforts to make the earth a little better than I found it” (p. 110-111)
Despite the controversy following the Homestead Strike and other issues, Bobinski (1969) claims that Carnegie’s business practices regarding his employees were standard for the time and were no worse, and perhaps even better, than those of his fellow industrialists. Nasaw (2006) goes even further, arguing that it was Carnegie’s decision early in life to give the entirety of his wealth away that drove him to do whatever it took to make more money -“Recognizing that the more money he earned, the more he would have to give away, he pushed his partners and his employees relentlessly forward in the pursuit of larger and larger profits” (p. xii-xiii) The question of whether his later generosity atoned for the ‘tainted money’ earned by Carnegie while engaging in ethically questionable business activities and enforcing what would now be considered appalling working conditions was one that many were uncomfortable with (Van Slyck, 1995); however, Carnegie himself apparently had no such qualms. Bobinski quotes Carnegie as saying, in 1914, “…when I go to trial for the things done on earth, I think I’ll get a verdict of “Not Guilty” through my efforts to make the earth a little better than I found it” (p. 110-111)