100 Years After the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

Play
Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3

Garment workers around 1900. (Credit: Kheel Center, Cornell University, photographer unknown)




Turn back the clock on New York City’s garment district to around the year 1900.

“The average work week was 84 hours, 12 hours every day of the week,” said Ellen Rothman with the Jewish Women’s Archive in Brookline, Mass. “During the busy season, the grinding hum of sewing machines never entirely ceased day or night.”

Conditions had begun to improve by 1911, but just slightly. On March 25th of that year, fire erupted at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in lower Manhattan. It was one of the worst workplace disasters in American history: 146 people died, mostly teenage girls and women, immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe and Italians.

Workers had few rights at the time. Garment factories were crowed, noisy and hot. Bathroom breaks were monitored. Workers had their bags inspected when they left for the day. When fire broke out at the Triangle Factory, the exits were locked to prevent theft.

“In trying to escape, there was no choice: be burned alive, or jump. And most of them jumped. And everyone who jumped died,” said Rothman.

Scores of people witnessed the horror, middle class patrons out for a Saturday stroll on a spring day in Greenwich Village. The accident made headlines across the country, and the labor movement in New York City, already in full tilt, was further galvanized by the Triangle Fire.

Within two years, New York State passed more than 30 labor laws, adding teeth to child labor protections, setting a minimum wage, and requiring safer conditions. Federal regulations followed during President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930’s.

Jobs for New Americans

Workers at the Nicole Miller Factory in NYC. Photo Credit: Jason Margolis

For decades after, New York City’s garment district thrived. In 1948, 354,600 people worked in the city’s garment industry, the peak after World War II. The numbers slowly started to decline in the 1960′s and 1970′s, then fell off a cliff. Today, only 16,700 garment workers are there, according to the New York State Department of Labor.

Like a century ago, most of today’s garment workers are immigrants: Jews and Italians have been replaced by Asians and Latinos. Workplace abuses still exist, but generally, conditions are vastly improved.

I visited the Nicole Miller factory in Manhattan’s garment district. The factory was well lit, clean, and ventilated.

“When it comes to the working conditions, I would say it’s good,” said Tony Persaud from Guyana.

Persaud works as a “cutter.”  He’s in a union. He earns $35,000 a year, plus benefits. He came to New York in the 1980’s. “It was very easy to get a job then. You could leave a job in the morning, go down to the 2nd floor and get a job,” said Persaud.

Persaud said he’s worried about his job though. His co-worker Mariana Franke, a pattern maker from Argentina, shared his anxiety. “Everybody is trying to save money so … I don’t know what to say?”

Shifting Work, Shifting Danger

Garment jobs have been shifting to lower-cost operations in Mexico, the Caribbean, and Asia for decades, as have dangerous working conditions.

“Effectively what we have done is exported our sweatshops and exported our factory fires,” said Robert Ross at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. And it’s as if the 1911 conditions had been lifted up by an evil hand and dropped into Bangladesh.”

According to the Bangladeshi government’s Fire Service and Civil Defense Department, 414 garment workers were killed in at least 213 factory fires between the years 2006 and 2009. Last year, 191 people were killed in Bangladesh in a reported 20 incidents, according to Ross’ research. Last December, a fire killed at least 25 people in a garment factory there.

“And the pattern is disturbingly uniform,” said Ross. “The shops are often in high rise buildings, just like the Triangle. The pattern is that an electrical fire starts, and then without adequate, or any fire escapes, without sprinkler systems, the workers surge to get out. And in factory after factory, the newspapers report locked gates and locked doors. It’s a horrific duplication of what we earlier experienced.”

Why?

The question is: Why does this keep happening? Labor laws exist, both international and country-specific rules. But Heewon Brindle-Khym, with the Fair Labor Association in New York City, said laws are often ignored in places like Bangladesh and China.

“It’s cheaper for many factory owners to not abide by the law because it costs them money,” said Brindle-Khym. “In terms of the enforcement of the law, there’s just aren’t enough inspectors to go to each and every factory in China to ensure that labor rights are being enforced.”

New York City garment workers around 1900. Photo credit: Kheel Center, Cornell University. Photographer Unknown.

Most American clothing companies are completely removed from the manufacturing process.  They often don’t know what goes on in their overseas factories, or they choose not to investigate.

Still, part of the blame for unsafe working conditions in garment factories also lies with American consumers, argued Robert Ross.

“The average American has eight pairs of jeans,” said Ross. He said trends show that show Americans continue to spend less and less money on clothes, while buying more and more stuff. “People should buy better and fewer clothes. That would be good for garment workers.”

But that’s not something consumers generally want to hear.

Still, 100 years after the Triangle Fire, labor organizers, activists and social researchers want to remind people that there’s a worker behind the cheap clothes we buy. And in many parts of the world, The Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire isn’t just an anniversary marking a bygone era.

Discussion

6 comments for “100 Years After the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire”

  • Anonymous

    “Buy fewer clothes?” That’s the solution to ending the abuses in foreign factories? I don’t get it; how will that help?
    What would have been more helpful in this report is a list of companies to avoid buying from and/or links to some organization that’s working to expose and end these abuses.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for your comments.

      Professor Robert Ross makes the point in my story that if we buy cheap clothes, the labor behind those clothes must also therefore come cheap. In the course of my reporting, other people told me that, generally, if we buy higher-quality goods that cost more, there’s a greater chance that the factory behind those goods is hiring higher-quality workers and paying better wages. Ross advises: pay more for clothes, but buy less.

      And yes, it would be great if there were a list of bad companies that we could avoid, but it was explained to me that it’s just not that simple to track down the bad actors. On the flip, it’s easier to have a list of companies that are treating workers fairly. Heewon Brindle-Khym of the Fair Labor Association explained to me that the bad actors tend to be smaller companies, and it’s impossible to monitor every factory throughout the world. She told me it’s easier to force the larger companies — such as Nike or Patagonia — to comply with labor standards. Her organization publishes a list of companies that have voluntarily agreed to comply with higher labor standards and allow for audits. http://www.fairlabor.org/

      I hope this addresses your points.

      -Jason Margolis

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1304098654 Matthew Brown

    What will you do? Buying fewer clothes seems little enough.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1304098654 Matthew Brown

    What will you do? Buying fewer clothes seems little enough.

  • Anonymous

    I couldn’t agree more with Robert Ross here. As my Dad taught me, a cheap suit is no bargain. It DOES add a little time and effort to clothes shopping, but finding quality clothing can be done, and the extra time is well worth it. Fist and foremost, become a label shopper: look for the union label. On men’s suits and sportcoats, it is usually in one of the interior pockets. Barring that, look for clothes with labels that indicate they were made (not just designed) in the U.S., the U.K, Canada, Italy, or other country where workers have at least some protections and organizing rights. Finally, if the label says “Made in China,” or “Made in Bangladesh,” put it back on the rack and keep looking. In catalogs and on the Internet, be wary of listings that indicate the item was imported, but doesn’t say where from: that usually means one of any number of countries with little or no labor protections. And don’t be afraid to ask retailers, online or in person, where something was made. The good ones will try to answer that question; the bad ones will get defensive. Sadly, there are some products where almost everything is now made in sweatshop-prone countries, but as Jason indicates in his response, sticking with larger firms, and firms that run their own factories abroad (as opposed to contracting out), increases the likelihood that you’ll avoid sweatshop-produced clothing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=177000545 Shane Fenton

    For some reason this article coincided with a period of ‘wardrobe despair’ and frustration with my own morbid consumerism. The comments about the average american owning 8 pairs of jeans – that’s me. Plus 8 pairs of khaki pants. Plus god only knows how many T shirts and other articles of clothing. Yet I find myself wearing only 2 or 3 pieces usually. I Look in my closet and think, “You need to wear something else” but find myself drifting back to the favorites. I have finally conquered the ‘It’s a good deal, buy it’ mentality that only results in unworn clothing because of poor fit, look, etc. But have yet to wean myself down to only a few high quality items. This article has encouraged me to do so for a greater reason.