leonidas p. cunningham provided the initial capital for the joplin overall company, but it was william h. scott who attempted to transform the company from a regional workwear manufacturer to a nationally known brand. through a series of stock purchases, he assumed control of the company sometime around the end of 1907 and beginning of 1908.
these joplin “overall girl” trade cards were produced in 1908 and were used to market “scott’s special” overalls. if they look reminiscent of the sweet-orr “overall girl” trade cards there’s a reason: scott was sweet-orr’s advertising manager in the early 1900s, maybe until 1905. he then worked for larned-carter’s headlight overalls for a few years before moving on to the joplin overall company.
around the end of his tenure with sweet, orr & co., scott organized an employers’ association called the “union label advertising league.” the league's intent was to promote the various labels attached to different types of union made products, including working garments. these promotions were often exhibitions or street parades where the labels themselves were the featured visuals, and appear to have been as flamboyant as scott’s promotions for sweet-orr.
an interesting criticism of scott’s use of the union label as advertising was presented in 1905 at the first convention of the industrial workers of the world. william ernst trautmann, one of the founding members of the i.w.w., delivered an address during the morning session of the convention’s third day entitled “indictment against the american federation of labor.” scott’s name was mentioned by trautmann, whose basic complaint was that scott was essentially using the union label as a manufacturers’ label. given scott’s advertising tactics, i completely agree. but at the end of the day, isn’t any label sewn into a garment an advertising “agency” for the manufacturer? the union label simply wouldn’t have been sewn into the garment unless a manufacturer perceived it to be beneficial to sales. the real focus of trautmann’s address, however, had more to do with his deep-seated belief that the american federation of labor, as well as many other labor unions, were collaborating with the companies their members worked for, thereby undermining the interests of the workers they represented. one-hundred and six years later, i wonder how much has changed in terms of the power dynamic between worker and employer.
when i look at a union label in a vintage garment, or any garment for that matter, i always wonder what was going on in the factory the moment that article was stitched up. the union label represents the ideal, not the real. there’s absolutely no way to know if all the fantastic ideals that we believe as a culture to mean “union made” were actually being upheld, and not just by the companies, but also by the unions themselves. Today's typical response to the union label seems to be a reflex, one that seems to be increasingly jingoistic.
these joplin “overall girl” trade cards were produced in 1908 and were used to market “scott’s special” overalls. if they look reminiscent of the sweet-orr “overall girl” trade cards there’s a reason: scott was sweet-orr’s advertising manager in the early 1900s, maybe until 1905. he then worked for larned-carter’s headlight overalls for a few years before moving on to the joplin overall company.
around the end of his tenure with sweet, orr & co., scott organized an employers’ association called the “union label advertising league.” the league's intent was to promote the various labels attached to different types of union made products, including working garments. these promotions were often exhibitions or street parades where the labels themselves were the featured visuals, and appear to have been as flamboyant as scott’s promotions for sweet-orr.
an interesting criticism of scott’s use of the union label as advertising was presented in 1905 at the first convention of the industrial workers of the world. william ernst trautmann, one of the founding members of the i.w.w., delivered an address during the morning session of the convention’s third day entitled “indictment against the american federation of labor.” scott’s name was mentioned by trautmann, whose basic complaint was that scott was essentially using the union label as a manufacturers’ label. given scott’s advertising tactics, i completely agree. but at the end of the day, isn’t any label sewn into a garment an advertising “agency” for the manufacturer? the union label simply wouldn’t have been sewn into the garment unless a manufacturer perceived it to be beneficial to sales. the real focus of trautmann’s address, however, had more to do with his deep-seated belief that the american federation of labor, as well as many other labor unions, were collaborating with the companies their members worked for, thereby undermining the interests of the workers they represented. one-hundred and six years later, i wonder how much has changed in terms of the power dynamic between worker and employer.
when i look at a union label in a vintage garment, or any garment for that matter, i always wonder what was going on in the factory the moment that article was stitched up. the union label represents the ideal, not the real. there’s absolutely no way to know if all the fantastic ideals that we believe as a culture to mean “union made” were actually being upheld, and not just by the companies, but also by the unions themselves. Today's typical response to the union label seems to be a reflex, one that seems to be increasingly jingoistic.
