On April 7, 1902, the workers at the King Mill in Augusta went on strike demanding a 10% increase in pay. In retaliation, local mill owners closed all of the local mills, which included King Mill plus all the mills in Horse Creek Valley on the other side of the Savannah River — Vaucluse, Graniteville, Warrenville, Bath, Langley, and Clearwater. The closures instantly threw 10,000 people out of work.
Headline from The Boston Globe, March 29, 1902
The King Mill strike was coordinated with a number of strikes at unionized textile mills, both large and small, throughout the northeastern US, all scheduled to begin on April 7th, which had been organized by various labor unions — textile workers, weavers, loomfixers, and mule spinners, and others.
A major victory occurred 10 days before the scheduled strike as the New Bedford, Massachusetts mill strike was called off on March 28th after the mill’s managers yielded and agreed to the 10% pay increase. The hope among all workers was, of course, that other mill owners would follow suit. (1) That didn’t happen.
Locally, it was the mill workers from the Horse Creek Valley mills that helped break the strike.
Headline from the Indianapolis Journal, Indianapolis, Indiana, April 10, 1902
Headline from Waterbury Democrat, Waterbury, Connecticut, May 22, 1902
One thing all millworkers shared in common that spring — union and non-union, north and south, alike — was headlines. For a while, the news of Aiken area mill workers was read in papers all over the country: from the Boston Daily Globe — which ran numerous stories throughout the spring — to the Portland Morning Oregonian, to the Savannah Morning News, to the Omaha Daily Bee, to the BaltimoreSun, to the Butte Inter Mountain, (out of Butte, Montana), to the Blackfoot Bingham News, (out of Blackfoot, Idaho), to the Thomasville Time Enterprise, (out of Thomasville, Georgia), to the Yorkville Enquirer, (out of York, SC). Hundreds of stories about Aiken County’s mill workers in newspapers papers all over the country.
Curiously, I was unable to find any record whatsoever of this story in the Aiken Standard. What role the absence of news coverage on important stories of the day may, or may not, play in the history of a place is good food for thought on this Labor Day.
Hines, Lewis. (1909) [Some of the children in King Cotton Mill. Augusta, Ga. Location: Augusta, Georgia]. https://www.loc.gov/item/2018675043/ No known restrictions on publication)
________________
(1) Sourced from various articles in The Boston Globe, March 29, 1902. Pgs 1 and 4.
In the early 2000’s, the City of Aiken’s personnel management system was confusing enough that a wrongful termination lawsuit eventually earned a hearing from the South Carolina Supreme Court. Aiken had both an Employee Handbook and Department Manuals to guide employer-employee relations. Today, there is only an Employee Handbook, a change probably triggered by a lawsuit that took five years to wind through the courts until being settled in 2006.
On September 4, 2001, the Tuesday after Labor Day, a wrongful termination lawsuit involving a former City of Aiken employee was filed in the Second Judicial Circuit. The heart of the lawsuit centered over differences between the City’s Employee Handbook and a Departmental Manual containing contradictory information regarding disciplinary action.
After the circuit court ruled in favor of the City, the plantiff appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeals “reversed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to Petitioner City of Aiken.”
In 2005, the South Carolina Supreme Court accepted the case, and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision by a vote of 3-2. The majority opinion stated “while we disagree with the basis of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, we affirm its result:” (1)
“The Court of Appeals held that the language of the Department Manual is “arguably” mandatory with respect to disciplinary procedures. The court therefore held that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the at-will status of Willis’s employment was altered. We disagree. Looking solely at the City Handbook and the Department Manual, no issue of material fact is present.
“However, Willis has introduced evidence that his supervisors orally represented that the disciplinary procedures in the Department Manual were mandatory. Willis has also introduced evidence that he was generally aware of the procedures to which his supervisors were referring. This evidence raises genuine issues of material fact that render summary judgment inappropriate.”
Chief Justice Toles dissented, writing:
“I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the department policy manual did not alter Respondent’s at-will employment status because Respondent did not rely upon the provisions of the manual related to the disciplinary procedure. Therefore, I would reverse the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for the City of Aiken.
“In the present case, the City of Aiken issued a handbook that contained conspicuous disclaimer stating that the handbook was not a contract. In addition, the City issued a department policy manual, which provided that employees must adhere to specific guidelines, but did not contain a disclaimer.”
In this case, a seemingly simple, straightforward employment matter left the highest court in the state divided, and their opinions reflected the confusion inherent in the city’s former employment system.
Today, the City of Aiken has one Employee Handbook to guide conduct, discipline, computer security, vacation time and other leave, ethics, cellphone use, and nearly every other rule of the workplace. (2)
Whether this came about as a result of the lawsuit is unknown. A question regarding the time and cause of the change has been with no response by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh.
I happened onto this confusing legal case while searching for the City of Aiken’s Employee Handbook, primarily to obtain information about their email, computer security, and hiring policies. The Handbook was not located on the city’s website, so a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was filed for both the handbook and Department manuals. (3) The response included an electronic copy of the Employee Handbook and an explanation that Department Manuals no longer exist.
The FOIA request included the option of posting the Handbook to the City’s job openings website or Human Resources page; but that option was declined. The Handbook is being posted here, to inform both potential city job candidates and Aiken taxpayers of the expectations for City employees. (Click image to read Employee Handbook).
After all, the Employee Handbook identifies “Citizens of Aiken” at the top of the supervisory chart.
(2) One policy that is not covered is the use of private email to conduct city business. It is neither prohibited nor allowed. There is no policy.
(3) City of Aiken FOIA Request #224-2022
“1. A copy of the City of Aiken Employee Handbook or equivalent manual as cited in Willis vs City of Aiken. https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2005/2005-mo-029-2.html 2. A copy of the Departmental Manual referenced in the same lawsuit, as well as any other departmental manuals that supplement the City of Aiken Employee Handbook or equivalent manual. These documents should be almost instantly accessible. Posting of these documents on City of Aiken job opening website or the City of Aiken Human Resources page of the City’s website would constitute a sufficient, complete response. https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/aikensc?
