The transformation from craftsman to machinist brought new challenges for the working class. Throughout late 1800’s and early 20th century, mechanization led by industrial capitalists embraced scientific management in the name of greater efficiency. Taylorism, named after engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor, focused on rigid repetition of basic tasks, helped speed up production for industries producing steel, oil, glass, and textiles. This mass production fed American’s new taste for consumption and pushed the country to the forefront of industrialization. The U.S economy expanded vastly throughout the early 1900’s and with it the wealth inequality between the working and upper class increased. It became such a gap that "according to various measurements, in 1890 the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans owned one fourth of the nation’s assets; the top 10 percent owned over 70 percent. This inequality only accelerated with industrialization. By 1900, the richest 10 percent controlled perhaps 90 percent of the nation’s wealth.”[1]

Rapid mechanization not only changed the nature and pace of factory work but also the health of the working class, who relied heavily on factory jobs for survival. With machines making it easier for production, skilled jobs were inevitably replaced by millions of low-paid, unskilled, unreliable jobs with long hours and dangerous working conditions.”[2] The lack of safety in manufacturing work presented itself as a main threat for workers within the factory. A steel mill in Butler, Pennsylvania had a huge explosion that was the result of molten steel being spilled on wet sand, causing part of the plant to be destroyed. Streams of hot metal fell on some workers resulting in it “engulfing and literally cooking some of them.”[3] Four men died while 30 more were injured. Another incident in a coffin plant saw a young boy “decapitated and had both arms and legs torn off when he was caught on shafting rotating at 300 revolutions per minute.”[4]

In Muncie, factories had their own share of dangers. Based on Lynd's findings in Middletown,  Muncie had “an average of 7,900 working men and women in thirty-six factories constituting the industrial population of the city in the first half of 1923.” [5] However, out of this working population “824 accidents serious enough to involve a loss of time from work were recorded during this six-month period.”[6] They go on to state that “three of the 824 injured during these six months were killed, one other was expected to die at the time the figures were tabulated, two lost one eye and three lost permanent partial use of an eye, three lost a hand and six partial uses of a hand, eight lost a finger and sixteen partial use of a finger, and so on.”[7] Physical injury plagued the new industrial world as owners overlooked safety and rather relied on easily replaceable positions that could be routinely handed to a new worker. It became apparent within the working class that physical injuries would be life changing and could end their main and only source of income.

Physical injuries were only one part of the job. At home, working class conditions worsened with the rise of mechanization. With the loss of craftsmanship and the power over their own production, the gradual implementation of machines in American factories resulted in an increase in struggles for the working class. This damage would not only be physical but also psychological as it impacted the social lives of workers. Implementation of new factory-led schedules pushed workers further for more production. Machinists would typically work for a couple of months before the factory would be shut down for maintenance or production slowed. Workers would then be laid off with no promise of rehiring them when the factory reopened. Lay-offs were seasonal, and it forced many workers to find new employment every year to make ends meet. One Muncie local, Pete VanCamp, seasonally transferred to several jobs in and out of state before returning to Muncie fully. Featured in the “Gear-O-Gram” newsletter of the BorgWarner company, Vancamp reported working at “Muncie Pattern works, Muncie Gear, Frank Foundries, Federal Pattern Indianapolis, Terre Haute Malleable, Bryan Pattern Shop, Maxon Premix Burner Company of Muncie. But the trail always led back to Muncie.”[8]


Work continued throughout day and night as workers filled day and night schedules for 24-hour operations of the factory. Workers would either work day or night shift and switch every five to six months “after which the workers are discharged or shifted to day work”[9]. With a work schedule of six days a week for 10 hours a day caused many struggles within the home. Workers would have the time to eat properly, spend time with their families, or partake in civil or social services. The removal of a father figure and sometimes other family members had a detrimental effect on home life as families struggled to make ends meet. The Lynds wrote of one father in Muncie who pleaded with a judge for his son’s juvenile case saying, “I work night shifts, judge, and sleep during the day, and I haven't been able to keep in touch with George."[10] The effect of mechanization had removed working class families from a comfortable life. The harsh conditions of their employment combined with low paying, seasonal employment led a majority of working-class families to struggle not only financially but physically and mentally. Many workers dedicated “sixty hours a week and could still expect their annual income to fall below the poverty line.”[11]

Even worse was the entrance of women and children to the workforce to compensate for the low wages men earned. The problems experienced within factories would force the working class to push for reforms. In the wake of the rapid industrialization, workers would focus on safety, increased wages, and equal work. Unionization sprouted as a way for workers to enforce their demands. It would influence the shape of working conditions for the next century.

[1]  Andrew C. Baker et al., “Capital and Labor,” Joseph Locke, ed., in The American Yawp, eds. Joseph Locke and Ben Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018).
[2] Baker et al., The American Yawp.
[3] “5. Progressive Era Investigations" (United States Department of Labor, n.d.). Accessed December 6, 2022. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/mono-regsafepart05.
[4] “5. Progressive Era Investigations.”
[5] Robert Staughton Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in American Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1929), 68.
[6] Lynd and Lynd, Middletown, 1929, 68.
[7] Lynd and Lynd, Middletown, 1929, 69.
[8] "Let's Get Acquainted With," Gear-O-Gram 5: 06 (December, 1948), 6.” Digital Media Repository. Ball State University. https://dmr.bsu.edu/digital/collection/GoGramNews/id/578/rec/34.
[9] Lynd and Lynd, Middletown, 55.
[10] Lynd and Lynd, Middletown, 55.
[11] Baker et al., The American Yawp.