Contested Meanings of Freedom: Workingmen's Wages, the Company Store System and the Godcharles v. Wigeman Decision

Laura  Phillips Sawyer

Article | Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era

Contested Meanings of Freedom: Workingmen's Wages, the Company Store System and the Godcharles v. Wigeman Decision

by Laura Phillips Sawyer

Abstract

In 1886, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited employers from paying wages in company store scrip and mandated monthly wage payments. The court held that the legislature could not prescribe mandatory wage contracts for legally competent workingmen. The decision quashed over two decades of efforts to end the "truck system." Although legislators had agreed that wage payments redeemable only in company store goods appeared antithetical to the free labor wage system, two obstacles complicated legislative action. Any law meant to enhance laborers' rights could neither favor one class over another nor infringe any workingman's ability to make voluntary contracts. These distinctions, however, were not as rigid and laissez faire-oriented as depicted by conventional history. Labor reformers argued that principles of equity must supplement these categories of class legislation and contract freedom. This essay explores how legal doctrine helped both sides of the anti-truck debate articulate the contested meanings of liberty. Ultimately, the Godcharles ruling enshrined the specialness of workingmen's labor contracts and rejected the use of equity principles to justify contract regulations, but the controversy also informed future labor strategies, especially the turn to state police powers as the rubric under which workers' safety, morals, and health could be protected.

Keywords: Wages; Rights; Fairness; Lawsuits and Litigation; Laws and Statutes; Pennsylvania;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Purchase

Citation:

Phillips Sawyer, Laura. "Contested Meanings of Freedom: Workingmen's Wages, the Company Store System and the Godcharles v. Wigeman Decision." Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 12, no. 3 (July 2013): 285–319.

Case | HBS Case Collection | November 2018 (Revised October 2019)

Rebuilding Puerto Rico

Laura Alfaro, Laura Phillips Sawyer and Haviland Sheldahl-Thomason

On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria swept over Puerto Rico, devastating the island’s infrastructure and agriculture. The natural disaster was layered atop years of mounting financial distress. Before the hurricane, Puerto Rico had accumulated $74 billion in debt and beginning in 2014, the island had withheld debt payments despite the commonwealth’s constitutional guarantee of its general obligation bonds. In turn, the island found itself effectively excluded from capital markets while simultaneously unable to declare bankruptcy in US courts due to its status as a territory. In 2016, the US Congress had intervened, passing the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (Promesa), which established an eight-member Oversight Board to manage the island’s fiscal planning and restructure its debts and other fiscal obligations under bankruptcy-like proceedings. Many stakeholders felt hopeful that the Oversight Board could help Governor Ricardo Rosselló enact reforms that would improve public services, eliminate government waste, re-establish creditworthiness, and ultimately, foster economic growth. But, many questions still remained: Was Promesa and the Oversight Board the best method to assist the island in fiscal recovery? Was the Board’s fiscal plan an acceptable approach? Would the island be able to regain access to capital markets and attract investments without allocating funds for its creditors in the near future?

Keywords: Natural Disasters; Financial Crisis; Infrastructure; Borrowing and Debt; Economy; Strategic Planning; Governing Rules, Regulations, and Reforms; Puerto Rico;

Citation:

Alfaro, Laura, Laura Phillips Sawyer, and Haviland Sheldahl-Thomason. "Rebuilding Puerto Rico." Harvard Business School Case 719-018, November 2018. (Revised October 2019.) View Details

Cite View Details Educators Purchase

The key pieces of antitrust legislation in the United States—the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914—contain broad language that has afforded the courts wide latitude in interpreting and enforcing the law. This article chronicles the judiciary’s shifting interpretations of antitrust law and policy over the past 125 years. It argues that jurists, law enforcement agencies, and private litigants have revised their approaches to antitrust to accommodate economic shocks, technological developments, and predominant economic wisdom. Over time an economic logic that prioritizes lowest consumer prices as a signal of allocative efficiency—known as the consumer welfare standard—has replaced the older political objectives of antitrust, such as protecting independent proprietors or reducing wealth transfers from consumers to producers. However, a new group of progressive activists has again called for revamping antitrust so as to revive enforcement against dominant firms, especially in digital markets, and to refocus attention on the political effects of antitrust law and policy. This shift suggests that antitrust may remain a contested field for scholarly and popular debate.

Faculty & Research

Contested Meanings of Freedom: Workingmen's Wages, the Company Store System and the Godcharles v. Wigeman Decision

Abstract

Citation:

More from these Authors