The 1927–1928 Bituminous Coal Strike Represented A Major Turning Point In American Labor History. It Took Place In The Years Following The Expiration Of The Jacksonville Agreement Of 1924, Which Had Set National Wage Standards For Bituminous Coal Miners. This Agreement, Originally Signed Between The United Mine Workers Of America And The Bituminous Coal Operators, Established A Daily Wage Rate Of Seven Dollars And Fifty Cents And Guaranteed Certain Working Conditions For Unionized Miners. The Agreement Expired On March 31, 1937. The Coal Operators Declined To Renew The Terms. Instead, They Proposed Substantial Wage Reductions. Many Miners Viewed This Decision As A Direct Attack On Their Economic Security And Labor Rights.
The United Mine Workers Of America, Under The Leadership Of President John L. Lewis, Called For A National Strike Beginning On April 1, 1927. Approximately Two Hundred Thousand Miners Participated In The Work Stoppage. The Strike Affected Major Bituminous Coal-Producing States Including Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, And Ohio. The Central Demand From The Union Was To Maintain The Wage Rate Set By The Jacksonville Agreement And To Prevent Any Regional Or Company-Based Wage Reductions. However, The Operators Rejected These Terms And Moved To Employ Non-Union Labor, Thereby Escalating The Conflict.
During The Strike, Many Coal Operators Sought To Break The Unity Of The Miners By Hiring Strikebreakers And Implementing Regional Wage Agreements. These Agreements Bypassed National Negotiations And Weakened The Bargaining Power Of The UMWA. In Some Regions, Mines Were Reopened With New Hires Willing To Work For Lower Wages. In Many Cases, These New Workers Were Protected By Armed Company Guards And Private Police Forces Known As The Coal And Iron Police. These Forces Often Engaged In Intimidation And Suppression Of Picketing Miners, Leading To Multiple Clashes And Arrests.
Courts Played A Significant Role In Undermining The Strike. In Some Areas, Local Judges Issued Broad Injunctions That Prohibited Traditional Forms Of Protest Such As Picketing, Public Assembly, And Even Hymn Singing. A Notable Example Was In Rossiter, Pennsylvania, Where A Judge Barred Miners From Holding Religious Meetings Near The Mines. These Legal Restrictions Severely Limited The Union’s Ability To Organize And Express Dissent In Public Spaces.
The Political Climate Of The Time Offered Little Support To Organized Labor. The Federal Government, Led By President Calvin Coolidge, Maintained A Policy Of Non-Intervention In Labor Disputes. This Left The Miners Without Federal Assistance Or Mediation. As A Result, The UMWA Faced Increasing Difficulty In Sustaining Momentum. Miners Faced Economic Hardship Due To Prolonged Work Stoppages. Many Families Relied On Local Relief Committees And Community Donations To Survive.
Within The UMWA, Internal Disagreements Emerged. A Faction Known As The Save-The-Union Group Criticized Lewis’s Centralized Leadership And Advocated For More Aggressive Resistance To Wage Reductions. This Group Included Left-Leaning Activists Who Accused Lewis Of Being Too Willing To Compromise With Employers. They Sought To Mobilize Grassroots Support Among Rank-And-File Miners And To Preserve The Original Terms Of The Jacksonville Agreement Without Concession. This Internal Division Created Tensions Within The Union And Weakened Its Negotiating Position.
The National Miners Union, A Rival Organization With Ties To The Communist Party, Was Formed In 1928 As An Alternative To The UMWA. It Aimed To Challenge The Leadership Of John L. Lewis And Provide A Platform For More Radical Labor Strategies. However, The Influence Of This Group Was Limited. The National Miners Union Failed To Gain Widespread Support Among The Mining Workforce And Did Not Significantly Alter The Course Of The Strike.
By 1927 And Early 1928, Many Striking Miners Were Forced To Return To Work Under Less Favorable Terms. The Economic Pressure Was Too Great For Most Families To Withstand. Mines Began To Reopen With Local Wage Agreements That Did Not Honor The Jacksonville Rate. These Outcomes Represented A Major Setback For The UMWA. Union Membership Declined Sharply. By 1929, The Number Of Dues-Paying Members Had Fallen To Approximately 84,000, Less Than Half Of The Number Involved At The Start Of The Strike.
The Wage Cuts That Resulted From The Strike’s Collapse Were Significant. In Many Areas, Miners’ Daily Pay Dropped From Seven Dollars And Fifty Cents To Around Five Dollars And Fifty Cents. These Reductions Had A Long-Term Impact On The Standard Of Living For Coal Mining Families. The Defeat Also Weakened The Bargaining Position Of The UMWA In Future Negotiations. It Highlighted The Challenges Of Maintaining A National Union Strategy In The Face Of Fragmented Regional Agreements And Legal Restrictions On Labor Activity.
The Use Of Injunctions During The Strike Drew Widespread Criticism From Labor Advocates And Civil Libertarians. These Legal Tools Were Often Used Broadly, Limiting Not Only Picketing But Also Speech And Assembly. Many Critics Argued That The Courts Were Being Used As Instruments Of Corporate Power Rather Than Neutral Arbiters. The Judicial Response To The Strike Became A Key Argument In Later Efforts To Reform Labor Law In The United States.
The Experience Of The 1927–1928 Bituminous Coal Strike Influenced The Passage Of Federal Legislation In The Following Decade. The Norris-La Guardia Act Of 1932 Restricted The Use Of Court Injunctions In Labor Disputes And Affirmed The Right Of Workers To Organize And Strike. This Law Was Followed By The National Industrial Recovery Act Of 1933 And The Wagner Act Of 1935, Both Of Which Strengthened Collective Bargaining Rights. The Setbacks Of The Strike Played A Role In Demonstrating The Need For Federal Protections For Organized Labor.
The 1927–1928 Bituminous Coal Strike Exposed The Structural Weaknesses Of The Coal Industry In The United States. The Industry Was Characterized By Overproduction, Falling Prices, And High Fixed Costs. These Economic Conditions Created Intense Pressure On Operators To Cut Labor Costs In Order To Remain Profitable. The Wage Reductions Proposed In 1927 Were A Direct Response To These Financial Challenges. However, The Burden Of Adjustment Fell Disproportionately On The Workforce. Miners Were Expected To Absorb The Impact Of Market Fluctuations Through Lower Pay And Reduced Hours.
The Labor Actions That Took Place During The Strike Were Often Met With Violent Resistance. In Addition To The Coal And Iron Police, Some Operators Used Local Law Enforcement And Hired Guards To Disperse Pickets And Secure Mine Entrances. In Several Instances, Violence Broke Out Between Strikers And Strikebreakers. Property Was Damaged, And Several Individuals Were Injured Or Arrested. The Presence Of Armed Forces Around The Mines Contributed To A Climate Of Fear And Tension In Mining Communities. Many Miners And Their Families Were Forced To Relocate Or Live Under Threat Of Eviction.
Newspapers Of The Time Reported On The Strike With Mixed Perspectives. Some Publications Sympathized With The Miners And Highlighted The Harsh Conditions They Faced. Others Framed The Strike As Disruptive To National Energy Supply And Accused The Union Of Obstructing Economic Progress. Public Opinion Was Divided. While Many Citizens Recognized The Economic Injustice Faced By The Miners, Others Believed That Strikes Should Not Be Allowed To Interfere With Essential Industries. This Division Reflected Broader Tensions In American Society Over The Role Of Organized Labor.
Religious Institutions Played A Limited But Notable Role During The Strike. Some Local Churches Offered Aid And Support To Striking Families. Clergy In Mining Regions Occasionally Spoke Out Against The Use Of Violence And Called For Peaceful Negotiation. However, Other Religious Leaders Urged A Return To Work, Citing Community Stability And The Need To Avoid Further Conflict. These Divisions Within Religious Communities Mirrored The Larger Social And Political Splits That The Strike Brought To The Surface.
The Leadership Style Of John L. Lewis Was A Defining Feature Of The Strike. Lewis Maintained Strict Control Over Union Policy And Communications. He Believed That A Strong Centralized Strategy Was Necessary To Counter The Power Of The Coal Operators. While This Approach Gained Him The Loyalty Of Some Members, It Also Generated Dissent. Critics Within The Union Argued That Lewis’s Leadership Was Authoritarian And Disconnected From Local Realities. The Strike Amplified These Concerns And Led To Greater Calls For Internal Reform.
After The Strike Ended In 1928, The United Mine Workers Of America Struggled To Rebuild Its Membership And Influence. Many Local Chapters Disbanded Or Became Inactive. The Union’s Financial Resources Were Depleted, And It Faced Legal Challenges From Operators Who Had Won Injunctions During The Strike. The Years Following The Strike Were Marked By A Period Of Retrenchment. The UMWA Focused On Consolidating Its Remaining Base And Rebuilding Its Capacity To Bargain On Behalf Of Workers.
Despite These Setbacks, The Experience Of The 1927–1928 Strike Contributed To A Broader Recognition Of The Need For Systemic Change In Labor Relations. Labor Historians Often Cite The Strike As A Precursor To The Legislative Reforms Of The New Deal Era. It Provided A Clear Example Of How Workers Could Be Undermined In The Absence Of Legal Protections For Collective Action. The Failures Of The Strike Helped Build Support For Policies That Would Later Protect The Right To Organize And Engage In Peaceful Protest.
The Coal Industry Itself Continued To Decline In The Following Decades. Mechanization Reduced The Demand For Manual Labor, And Alternative Energy Sources Began To Compete With Coal. These Economic Shifts Further Weakened The Bargaining Position Of Miners. However, The Institutional Memory Of The Strike Remained Strong Within The Labor Movement. It Served As A Cautionary Tale About The Limits Of Union Power Without Legal Safeguards And Unified Membership Support.
Several Academic Studies Have Analyzed The Strike In Detail. These Works Emphasize The Role Of Economic Context, Legal Constraints, Leadership Dynamics, And Social Divisions. Researchers Have Also Highlighted The Importance Of Communication Networks Among Miners And The Use Of Print Media As A Tool For Organizing. Oral Histories From Miners And Their Families Provide Firsthand Accounts Of The Hardships They Endured And The Sense Of Solidarity That Sustained Them During The Strike.
In Retrospect, The 1927–1928 Bituminous Coal Strike Was A Defining Moment In American Labor History. It Demonstrated The Vulnerability Of Unions When Faced With Coordinated Resistance From Employers And Courts. It Also Revealed The Importance Of Federal Policy In Shaping The Outcomes Of Labor Disputes. The Lessons From The Strike Helped Inform The Development Of Labor Law In The United States And Contributed To A Stronger Legal Foundation For Collective Bargaining In The Decades That Followed.
The Strike’s Legacy Continues To Be Studied And Remembered. It Remains An Important Example Of Worker Resistance In The Face Of Economic Injustice. Although The Immediate Outcomes Were Unfavorable For The Miners, The Long-Term Impact Helped Build Momentum For Reform. The 1927–1928 Bituminous Coal Strike Serves As A Historical Case Of Industrial Conflict That Shaped The Evolution Of Labor Relations In The United States.
References / More Knowledge:
U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics. (1939). Bituminous Coal Stoppage Data. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
ExplorePAHistory.com. “UMWA’s Battle For Bituminous Coal Wages.” Pennsylvania Historical And Museum Commission.
Foster, William Z. (1928). “Two Mine Strike Strategies.” The Communist, Vol. 7, No. 5.
RevolutionsNewsstand.com. “Save The Miners’ Union!” The Communist, March 1928.
IUP Libraries Special Collections. “UMWA District 2 Records, 1927–1929.” Indiana University Of Pennsylvania.
Wikipedia. “1927 Indiana Bituminous Strike.” Accessed July 2025.
Wikipedia. “John L. Lewis.” Accessed July 2025.
Pennsylvania Historical Association. “The Struggle For Coal: Labor, Law, And Loss.” Pennsylvania History Journal, Vol. 89, No. 2.