More Than Mines Industrial Decline, Gender, and the Iron Range's Cluett

MORE THAN MINES

Industrial Decline, Gender, and the Iron Range’s Cluett, worst effects of deindustrialization confronted the Iron Range. Mines Peabody, and Company Arrow Factories, 1946–1979 shut down. Forty percent of the mining workforce lost their jobs. David LaVigne Out-migration swelled. Municipal governments struggled to function IN JANUARY 1962, an Iron Range sion reduced the mining workforce with dwindling tax revenues.1 newspaper—the Mesabi Daily from 12,000 to 4,500 employees over “Horizons Unlimited” was a News—published an annual feature the course of the 1920s and 1930s, rejoinder to these troubles. The news- entitled “Horizons Unlimited.” The when unemployment in all sectors paper proclaimed that “the future issue assessed the economic status across the region reached upwards of offers great potentialities,” and of northern Minnesota’s iron min- 10,000 people. Massive iron ore pro- cited two industries in particular ing district. While historically the duction during and immediately after as fulfilling that promise. One was nation’s most important producer of World War II temporarily restored taconite mining. Taconite was a iron ore, the region had fallen on hard jobs, but it also spurred a new crisis rock with a low iron content, but the times in recent decades. Laborsaving in the late 1950s. As high-grade ore Iron Range contained vast reserves technologies and the Great Depres- reserves neared exhaustion, the of it capable of sustaining mining

54 MINNESOTA HISTORY facing: Stitching room at the Virginia factory. This article reestablishes the importance of the Arrow factories for decades. “Horizons Unlimited” and traces their development on heralded modern technologies that the Iron Range after 1945. Three could extract the iron component biographical sketches recreate the and called taconite “a cheering omen” history. Frank Mancina, the subject of and “the principal hope of the area.” the first biography, served as Cluett, The second industry was apparel Peabody’s Minnesota divisional manufacturing. A leading national manager from 1949 to 1963. His producer of menswear, Cluett, story reveals how job opportunities Peabody, and Company, operated directed at women helped to revive factories in the Iron Range cities of the region’s economy. Emma Petrick, Eveleth, Virginia, and Gilbert. These the focus of the second account, plants made the company’s signature worked for 25 years as a sewing Arrow brand dress shirts and under- machine operator. Her experiences wear, and later added a pajamas line. provide a window into the impact of The newspaper described Cluett, factory work on gender roles. Cath- The manager: Frank Mancina Peabody as “an asset in the Range erine Rukavina, the final individual, economy” and pronounced that diver- packaged shirts from 1947 to 1979 When the United States entered sified industry helped “to sustain the and was president of a local branch World War II, Mancina became an lifeblood of the area.”2 of the clothing workers’ union. Her economist for the War Labor Board in “Horizons Unlimited” justifiably tale explains how women came Chicago. He returned to Minnesota linked taconite mining and apparel to form an active part of the labor in 1944 to fill a wartime position at manufacturing. Both engaged movement. Taken together, the three the A. O. Smith Corporation’s propel- ongoing problems associated with profiles highlight the ways in which ler plant in St. Paul. He and another industrial change during the second responses to deindustrialization were plant manager named L. J. Parrish half of the twentieth century. Yet deeply gendered. Iron Range men became friends at this time.4 even as the two industries inter- and women experienced industrial Mancina’s association with Cluett, sected in meaningful ways, they also change in different ways. Peabody began soon after the war. differed. Cluett, Peabody’s Arrow With the apparel industry experi- factories injected new energy into the encing rapid growth, the company Iron Range economy; the prolonged THE MANAGER: Frank Mancina sought to extend operations beyond decline of mining—the taconite No person played a larger role in the its bases in Troy, New York, and boom notwithstanding—bred Arrow factories’ history than Frank Atlanta, Georgia. L. J. Parrish, now sentiments of despair that overshad- Mancina, the “father and builder” of Cluett, Peabody’s vice president of owed “Rust Belt” towns across the the Iron Range plants. Mancina was manufacturing, led the initiative. Upper Midwest. The Arrow factories born in Eveleth on July 26, 1913, the Mancina suggested to Parrish the employed predominantly women son of Italian immigrants. His father potential of Minnesota’s iron min- and had an empowering impact on was a blast man at the mines. The ing district. Mancina admitted that gender dynamics; mining was an family were devout Roman Catholics, operating and transportation costs exclusively male domain, and job and, later in life, Frank became state might be lower in other parts of the losses threatened masculine roles head of the Knights of Columbus. country, but he believed that the and identities. In those areas where After graduating from Eveleth Junior industry “would be helpful to the the two industries diverged, histori- College in 1934, Mancina earned BA economy of an area which had known ans have focused almost entirely on and MBA degrees at the University of ups and downs.” To sell the region, variations of the mining narrative. Chicago, which subsequently hired he promised minimal startup costs. The significance that “Horizons him as a professor of economics and Cluett, Peabody would not have to Unlimited” attributed to Cluett, Pea- director of the Institute of Statistics. build new factories; instead it could body’s operations does not figure In 1940, Mancina married fellow busi- repurpose a vacant school building into historical understandings of the ness school graduate Alexia Harter. and community recreational centers region or era.3 The couple would have five children. that had fallen out of use. Municipal

SUMMER 2018 55 governments agreed to bear the workforce than in returning profits what was already a problem with costs to refurbish the facilities and to its New York headquarters. In 1957, high employee turnover. He warned extended lease agreements with low for example, Mancina lobbied against lawmakers: “Enactment of this legis- rental rates. (See sidebar, page 60.) a state proposal extending unemploy- lation will force us to leave the state.” A state government agency provided ment benefits to women who took On other occasions, company execu- funds for vocational training.5 leave for a pregnancy or to attend to tives sought property tax reductions or allowances to pay new employees below the state’s minimum wage What made the factories truly novel was that rate. During periods of low consumer they created jobs primarily for women. demand, factories were subject to shutdowns or workweeks reduced to four days.7 Four Arrow factories opened on household duties. Speaking as man- The focus on employing women the Iron Range between 1946 and ager of Cluett, Peabody’s Minnesota raised concerns as well, for it did not 1947, bringing new life and new ways Division—a post that he assumed address the region’s most pressing of thinking to the region. The fac- in 1949—Mancina argued that loop- problem—a lack of jobs in the min- tories notably reduced dependence holes in the measure exacerbated ing industry. Men filled almost all on mining. A Chisholm newspaper described the operations as “the realization of a dream . . . to add to the payroll of the mines which up to this time has been the only industry here.” Mancina supervised a plant in Eveleth making men’s underwear. Facilities in Virginia, Gilbert, and Chisholm produced men’s dress shirts. What made the factories truly novel, though, was that they created jobs primarily for women. While Iron Range women had always per- formed unpaid labor in the home, they rarely had worked for wages. Elmi Gozdanovich, an employee at the Gilbert plant, remarked, “there were no jobs [for women] until the shirt factory.” Mancina identified “an untapped reservoir of female . . . help.” Cluett, Peabody, for its part, preferred locating in areas without alternative employment options. The labor surplus allowed it to pay lower starting wages.6 For some Iron Range residents, the prospective value of such changes merited skepticism. Economic diver- sification benefited the region, but there also was evidence that Cluett, Peabody had less interest in the local

2,000 Women Wanted! ad from Eveleth News-Clarion, May 16, 1946.

56 MINNESOTA HISTORY Cluett, Peabody promotional advertisement from the Mesabi Daily News's annual industrial issue, January 22, 1963.

community choice of occupation, makes for better working conditions all around, and gives the community the additional economic security and economic freedom that makes for a free people.” Recognition of the factories’ impact reached the level of state politics. During a tour of the Arrow plants in 1955, Minnesota governor Orville Freeman cast them as an embodiment of new invest- ments in the region. “I like to come to the Range,” he declared, affirming, “In this area is development which augurs well for the future.” Mancina welcomed three Minnesota governors to the Arrow factories, and two others visited after his tenure.9 Mancina could point to two primary benefits created by the factories. First, women’s wages became an important source of household income. As an active Republican Party member, Mancina believed that economic growth occurred through job creation by private industry rather than by government spending. The Committee for Bigger and Better Virginia, a group of local businesspeople, in fact directly of Cluett, Peabody’s management prosperity depended on attracting asked, “Do we want payrolls or relief positions and most of the jobs in the additional industries, such as iron ore rolls?” During labor strikes or sea- factories’ cutting and mechanical smelting. According to Leoni, it was sonal shutdowns at the mines or in departments. These were the highest smelting, not garment manufactur- households with no male presence, paying posts, but they constituted ing, that represented “the answer to women’s paychecks could be the sole less than 20 percent of all jobs at the our labor and production problems.”8 source of earnings. The factories plants. A former mayor of Virginia, That said, most Iron Range collectively employed between 700 Herman Eaton, consequently won- residents lauded Mancina for estab- and 800 workers on average. In other dered, “How are we to solve male lishing new job opportunities. situations, factory jobs provided unemployment by hiring women?” When the Eveleth plant opened in supplemental income that allowed Even proponents of the factories had 1946, city attorney M. H. Greenberg families to attain a higher standard difficulty conceptualizing “work” as called it “the best thing that’s hap- of living. Frank Mancina’s sister-in- something other than men’s jobs. pened here in 40 years.” Mancina law, Mary Mancina, recalled earning Gilbert businessman Joseph Leoni himself characterized the factory as $1.50 per hour at the Eveleth factory described the Arrow plants as the first transforming Eveleth into “a City of during the 1950s. She explained, step in a regional economic revival. Hope.” He asserted that diversified “It [the pay] wasn’t too bad. . . . We He believed, however, that future industry “gives to the residents of a bought our house with that.”10

SUMMER 2018 57 Gov. Orville Freeman (second from right) observes sewing machine operator Albena Repar at the Eveleth factory, 1955.

Second, the Arrow factories gen- erated secondary spending in Iron Range communities. During lease negotiations with the Chisholm city council in 1950, Mancina argued that the half million dollars that Chisholm’s Arrow plant paid each year in wages vastly expanded pur- chasing power in the city. When employees spent those earnings at local businesses, the actual economic impact exceeded one million dollars. “This is not tax money, which you take from the people and it comes back to you [as government relief],” Mancina maintained, reasoning, “If the plant were not here it would mean a great loss.” Virginia resident Fran- lems of post-1945 industrial decline. later managed a farm in the nearby cine Gunderson credited that city’s Whereas most efforts for economic countryside. Emma married Anthony factory with energizing Main Street recovery aimed at putting men Petrick, a postal service worker, in commerce. Workers had a 45-minute back to work, new job opportunities 1930, and then stayed at home for a lunch break and frequently used targeting women challenged the gen- decade and a half raising the couple’s the time to make quick purchases at dered assumptions underlying those three children. A World War II labor nearby shops. Gunderson’s own busi- strategies. Effectively responding to shortage disrupted this life, when ness exemplified how the factories changes in industries like mining she took a job in 1944 hauling and supported local enterprise. She con- required expanding the family econ- laying railroad ties for the Duluth, tracted with Cluett, Peabody and ran omy and combining wages from both Missabe and Iron Range Railway. the employee cafeteria at the Virginia men and women.12 Petrick balanced the work with her factory.11 Frank Mancina died from cancer on April 4, 1963, at age 49. In a touch- THE MACHINE OPERATOR: ing remembrance, the Mesabi Daily Emma Petrick News grieved the loss for his family, If Frank Mancina deserves recogni- church, and employees. The news- tion for bringing Cluett, Peabody’s paper opined: “To the wide circle manufacturing line to the Iron Range, of those who labored day to day it was the thousands of employees with him in business, providing the who made Arrow shirts, underwear, Range with an important segment of and pajamas that kept the plants industry, his loss will be felt keenly.” operating for more than three Mancina’s economic legacy was decades. Emma Petrick was one of indeed significant. Most immediately, those employees. Born on August 22, Cluett, Peabody opened its fifth and 1911, Petrick grew up in a family of 11 final Iron Range factory in 1964. It children. Her father, Marco Prebich, manufactured men’s pajamas at a was an immigrant from Serbia, and second site in Eveleth. More broadly, her mother, Mary, immigrated from Mancina introduced an alternative Slovenia. The family ran a boarding- approach for dealing with the prob- house close to the city of Hibbing and The machine operator: Emma Petrick

58 MINNESOTA HISTORY family responsibilities by filling the Cluett, Peabody clockwatcher card, aimed at night shift. After the war ended, she increasing trainees' production rate. returned home.13 In 1948, Petrick reentered the specific skill—took over. They joined wage-earning workforce, this time as the front and back of shirts, sewed a sewing machine operator at Cluett, sleeves, collars, or cuffs, attached Peabody’s Chisholm factory. Although pockets, anchored buttons, and cut the plant opened in 1947, she waited buttonholes. Operators received until her youngest child began shirt parts in a one-dozen stack school. She transferred to Virginia called a “bundle,” and their earnings in 1952 after corporate restructuring depended on the number of bundles closed the Chisholm site. For women completed. After assembly, another like Petrick, the factory jobs were a group of workers pressed the shirts welcome opportunity. Mary Rainaldi, before an inspector evaluated them an Eveleth resident, could hardly for quality. Inspectors returned shirts contain her enthusiasm about that that did not meet the company’s city’s plant opening. “I jump up, I exacting standards, and workers was so happy,” she recalled in a bro- had to rip out the stitches and start ken Italian accent, “We ladies don’t over. When approved, a shirt moved go no other place to work.” Factory on to the packaging and shipping employees were a varied lot: young departments.15 and old, single and married, divorcées Petrick enjoyed the work and and widows, with and without chil- became highly proficient at her job. dren. The women also represented a She indicated that it “was nothing” to were hot, dusty, and noisy. Windows melting pot of ethnic backgrounds. complete the daily production quota stayed sealed in summer to keep out Eveleth employee Nancy Oksanen set for each employee. Petrick’s mas- birds, workers became sick from dust particles in the air, and supervisors tried to speed up production by pip- Supervisors tried to speed up production ing polka music over the steady hum of machinery.16 by piping polka music over the steady hum Away from the shop floor, women of machinery. faced additional pressures. Petrick’s decision to work stood in stark con- trast to contemporary gender norms Barnett’s maiden name earned her tery of the work, however, belied the that saw breadwinning as a man’s a work assignment next to a Finnish difficulty of the job. The piecework responsibility. Giovanna Serra Gen- immigrant. As it turned out, Barnett system of pay created an intense, tilini, a pocket attacher in Eveleth, did not speak Finnish and the immi- fast-paced work environment. acknowledged that when she took a grant woman did not speak English.14 Another sewing machine operator, job with Cluett, Peabody, her first hus- Once on the shop floor, employees Cecile Lakin, worked only a year band “thought that it was a dishonor encountered a fine-tuned operation. before quitting for health reasons. for him, that it wasn’t nice, that he “It was a big deal,” Petrick com- “It’s just push, push, push, push,” she couldn’t support you.” She excitedly mented, “It was quite a busy place.” remembered, “and I found I almost added: “He says, ‘What the people Petrick’s job involved shirt making. passed out one day and I thought, say?’” Virginia Kirby observed similar The process began when bolts of ‘Oh, dear, better leave!’” The assembly attitudes in her role as a personnel fabric arrived from out of state. The line setup meant that the work was supervisor at the Virginia plant. “I cutting department measured and repetitive. Betty Pond, who stitched found that men still thought that cut the fabric and distributed parts collars at the Gilbert factory, noted, women’s place was in the home,” she within the factory. From there, an “I sewed the same seam every day, stated, “and a lot of the women had assembly line of sewing machine all day long. It was tedious.” And the to quit after they worked for a couple operators—each having mastered a physical surroundings of the plants of weeks or a month because their

SUMMER 2018 59 THE FACTORIES

Cluett, Peabody, and Company was headquartered in Troy, New tively far from the other factory sites, and Cluett, Peabody’s York, and had holdings across the United States and around the negotiations with the city council were more fraught. Workers world. Between 1946 and 1979, it operated five apparel facto- transferred to Virginia after the plant closed. Built in 1923, the ries on Minnesota’s Iron Range. Each site repurposed existing, Community Building today houses Ironbound Studios, a film publicly owned buildings. and television production company. The first Iron Range factory opened in Eveleth in November The last of the Iron Range factories opened in April 1964 1946 and made men’s underwear. The plant was located in the in Eveleth. It was known as Eveleth Plant No. 2. Located in the city’s Recreational Building, which when inaugurated in 1919 former municipal auditorium, Plant No. 2 made men’s pajamas. was northern Minnesota’s premier venue for hockey games and Due to this factory’s poor sales volume, Cluett, Peabody discon- curling matches. By the 1940s, a more modern sports complex tinued the operations after only five years and reconfigured the had replaced the building and it stood vacant. Manufacturing facility to package underwear. In 2017, the City of Eveleth com- operations continued at the factory through March 1979. Today, pleted renovations restoring the building to its original 1912 the location serves as a storage warehouse. designation as a community center and performing arts space. The Virginia factory opened in July 1947 in the city’s Memorial Recreation Building. It produced men’s dress shirts. Built in 1923, the Recreation Building was still in use during the 1940s, and a municipal referendum was required to relocate the recreation program to another facility. After the factory closed in March 1979, developers transformed the structure into an office building. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1982, but as of spring 2018 was slated for demolition. The Gilbert plant specialized in making shirt collars and cuffs. It opened in July 1947 in a vacant primary school building. Dating to 1908, the structure was popularly known as the Old Red School. The Gilbert School Board owned the facility, making it the only site where Cluett, Peabody did not negotiate its lease with a city council. The company shuttered the plant in November 1977, and employees transferred to Eveleth. The school board demolished the out- dated building in 1982. The Chisholm factory opened in August 1947 and closed in May 1952. It manufactured dress shirts in the Chisholm Community Building, a structure formerly containing skating and curling rinks. Chisholm was rela-

By 1966, four plants were still operating, two in Eveleth, and one each in Gilbert and Virginia. Ad from Mesabi Daily News, Jan. 29, 1966.

60 MINNESOTA HISTORY husband didn’t like to come home edly stressed these values of work the factory.” Her workplace exper- and not have dinner ready.” Those ethic and discipline to account for tise and attitude pointed to shifting concerned about women’s employ- their longevity. Gloria Folman sewed expectations for Iron Range women ment feared children running wild sleeves at the Virginia factory from during the latter half of the twen- in the streets. They longed to impose the day the plant opened to the day it tieth century. Although few of the traditional gender roles that, as Kirby closed. While she admitted that the women employed at the Arrow remarked, kept women “pregnant and job was difficult, she found it interest- factories identified themselves as barefooted.”17 ing and echoed Petrick’s assessment feminists—a concept too narrowly Emma Petrick was not and had of the industrial work environment. associated with the women’s libera- no intention of being such a woman. “You have to work at a shirt factory tion movement—their work lives did She refused to let male supervisors first to see how the world operates,” much to expand gender equality. Fac- or corporate “bigshots” intimidate Folman observed, averring, “You tory jobs challenged cultural norms her. After company executives intro- don’t sit around. If you want to make limiting women’s place to the home duced a new training regimen in the money, you do your work.”19 and allowed working-class women 1970s, Petrick expressed skepticism. Employees developed other strat- to achieve economic independence. “I told ’em it wasn’t gonna work,” she egies to maximize earnings. Many The impact of such changes was recalled, “’cause I know what you go women learned how to repair their most recognizable in households through. [They] didn’t know.” The sewing machines when they broke headed exclusively by women. The system did prove faulty, and Petrick down. Helen MacInnis, who made experiences of workers like Petrick balked when the corporate men asked shirt cuffs at the Gilbert plant, noted demonstrate that adjustments to gen- her to resolve the problems. She that operators lacking this ability der roles affected women broadly.21 replied, “‘That’s what you’re supposed went home without pay if there were to do!’ . . . They didn’t like that one no mechanics on duty. Another tac- bit.” Esther Brunfelt, an inspector at tic was what Petrick referred to as THE UNION HEAD: the Virginia plant, called out the com- “saving.” Each bundle of garments Catherine Rukavina pany on its safety measures. Brunfelt was identified by a ticket, and a sew- One of Emma Petrick’s coworkers found that supervisors discouraged ing machine operator tracked her at the Virginia plant was a packag- theft by keeping the factory doors progress by pasting the tickets from ing department employee named locked. She compared the situation completed bundles on a tally sheet. Catherine Rukavina. Like Petrick, to the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist If the output on a particular day was she played a significant role in the Factory, where in 1911 a fire took the especially good, a worker might save Arrow factories’ history and in the lives of 146 trapped New York City the final ticket and submit it the next activities of the union representing garment workers. Brunfelt decided, morning to gain a head start for that the workers especially. Catherine “That ain’t gonna happen to me,” and day’s minimum quota. Perhaps the “Katie” Rukavina was born in Virginia secretly reported the infraction to the most contentious way to increase on May 29, 1920. Her parents were fire commissioner.18 output was to monopolize smaller Croatian immigrants, and her father Petrick handled the constant shirt and underwear sizes. Because was a miner. When Rukavina was strain to speed up production as smaller-sized garments could be sewn nine years old, her mother died, and well. She exclaimed, “A lotta people more quickly, operators rushed to for the next few years, a succession of would say, ‘Oh, ish, it’s slave labor.’ I grab those bundles when the cutting housekeepers cared for her and her don’t care! If you’re a worker, you’re department made its deliveries. Sharp four siblings. The Great Depression gonna work. . . . I wasn’t afraid of arguments sometimes broke out on made it too difficult to continue pay- work.” Petrick became an effective the shop floor between coworkers.20 ing for help, though, and Rukavina machine operator by developing a Emma Petrick retired in 1973 quit school midway through ninth set routine. When one supervisor after 25 years of sewing shirt pock- grade to take up the housekeeping asked her to clean her workstation, ets at the Arrow factories. For much duties. For the next 12 years, her Petrick responded, “I don’t pick up of that time, she also served as a full-time responsibility—apart from [scrap] papers until noon. . . . [If] you trainer, which was a testament to her two brief stints working as a shop want me to produce, you just better skill. Petrick later reflected on her assistant at five-and-dime stores— let those papers go.” The factories’ shirt-making career with fondness, was caring for the home and family. most experienced employees repeat- saying, “I always loved working at Rukavina’s siblings continued their

SUMMER 2018 61 schooling, and all went on to college. seded ideology. Starting in 1948, one She remained with her father and of the Amalgamated’s main initiatives never married.22 was a “union label” campaign. The Like all Cluett, Peabody employees, strategy asked consumers of men’s Rukavina automatically became a apparel—the majority being women member of the Amalgamated Clothing shopping for their families—to buy Workers of America when she joined only goods made in union-organized the company in 1947. The union rep- factories. Rukavina called out mem- resented workers in the men’s apparel bers of Local 512 who purchased industry. Rukavina cared about nonunion clothing labels: “I’d preach labor issues, and in time she became ’em and tell ’em, ‘Don’t do that, don’t president of the Virginia branch of do that,’” she lamented. “They didn’t Amalgamated Local 512. Admittedly, care. They’d do it anyway . . . because the union’s structure was not always to it was cheaper.”25 her liking. Amalgamated executives More commonly, women backed eschewed direct action strategies, the labor movement because of like strikes, and pursued their objec- “bread and butter” issues. The Amal- tives through collective bargaining gamated fought for fair wages, paid agreements. Rukavina felt that the The union head: Catherine Rukavina. vacation time, and medical, life top-down approach minimized her insurance, and pension plan ben- role. “It really wasn’t much that you of the local’s Gilbert branch, Mayme efits. Angie Lautigar, president of could do,” she said, explaining, “You Coombe, commented, “The girls were Local 512’s Eveleth branch, noted, really couldn’t say, ‘Well, I want this, in the mood.” But before the women “Everybody complains about wages or I want that.’ . . . You could say it, reached a consensus, Amalgamated if they’re good or not.” During the but it didn’t work because that isn’t executives snubbed out the demon- aborted strike of 1975, she advocated the way that it was working [at Amal- stration. “It’s a hard thing to do,” for a pay raise, arguing, “Women who gamated headquarters] in New York.” Coombe reflected after the workers are sole supporters of their families Rukavina described the activities of backed down, adding, “Women don’t especially need it.” In Gilbert, Mayme Local 512 as too often amounting to carry a lot of clout.”24 Coombe applauded the Amalgamated little more than reading the minutes In spite of these limitations, for negotiating improved maternity of previous meetings.23 Rukavina worked hard to build benefits but criticized its failure Gender dynamics compounded support for Local 512. Various moti- to secure a piece rate increase for the constraints that Rukavina wrestled vations inspired Iron Range women’s specialized fabrics. The extra time with as a leader of the local. Union labor activism. For Rukavina, the required to sew difficult patterns cut women faced challenges that union main reason to become involved in into earnings. Rukavina involved the men did not. Rukavina suggested, for union endeavors was a commitment union in a pension dispute. Upon instance, that low attendance at Local to progressive politics. “I’ve always retiring, she anticipated monthly 512 business meetings was partly been union-minded and politically pension checks of $150. She con- attributable to the fact that the ses- minded,” the lifelong Democratic- tacted Amalgamated headquarters sions took place at night. At the end Farmer-Labor Party member declared, after a technicality reduced her pay- of the workday, many women rushed expounding, “Vote home to attend to household duties all the time, no or children returning from school. matter if it’s school, Some women lacked the private trans- national, city, or portation needed to attend evening state.” Rukavina bris- meetings. In other cases, it was the tled when coworkers’ patriarchy of the American labor pragmatism super- movement that inhibited women’s activism. In 1975, 300 Arrow factory Amalgamated Clothing employees gathered in Virginia to dis- Workers of America, cuss organizing a strike. The president "Union Label" campaign.

62 MINNESOTA HISTORY Going-away party for Minnesota divisional manager William Conley, 1971. The scrapbook where this photo was found jokingly describes the women as “The Harem.” ments to only $70 per month. “That’s what I got for thirty-one-and-a-half years,” she protested to no avail, “Oh, was I mad!”26 Union involvement did not nec- essarily have to set workers and employer against one another. For many members, Local 512 was as much a social organization as it was a political unit. Rukavina’s counter part in Gilbert, Mayme Coombe, recalled, “I tell you, I never made any money there [at the factories], but a lot of good friends.” Local 512 coor- dinated with Cluett, Peabody to host plant was older, and Lautigar tied two years later. Workers rejected Halloween and Christmas parties, the branch’s strength to the women’s announcements by the company to organize picnics, to contribute to fears that their age made opportuni- linking the shutdowns to high turn- community fund-raisers and bond ties for reemployment difficult. In the over rates and the plants’ remoteness drives, and to field teams in bowl- 1970s when market pressures from from Cluett, Peabody’s East Coast ing, softball, and curling leagues. inexpensive foreign-made apparel centers of operation. Rukavina asked Despite occasional tensions, labor- threatened jobs as a whole, workers at in disbelief: “How could they say that management relations were generally all of the Iron Range factories relied after being here 32 years? And all cordial. Factory cafeterias offered on the union. Amalgamated execu- of a sudden?” From the perspective spaces for socializing, and factory tives lobbied for tariffs on clothing of Local 512, corporate greed was to stores built goodwill by selling Arrow imports from Hong Kong, Japan, and blame. “I’m angry,” Virginia employee apparel at discounted prices. During other parts of East Asia. Goods manu- Lillian Beauduy vented upon hear- lax production periods, workers and factured in those areas, they claimed, ing of the shutdown, avowing, “Just to close for profit I think is terrible.” Amalgamated executive Burton Genis For many members, Local 512 was as much a added, “Maximization of profits has taken precedence over anything else.” social organization as it was a political unit. He called the exodus “cold-blooded” and “immoral.” Per Cluett, Peabody’s supervisors filled time by making gag were a product of “unfair competition union contract, reduced domestic items, like an oversized pair of under- based on sweatshop wage levels.” production—which occurred when wear. Catherine Rukavina was one of Local 512 issued similar statements the plants closed—allowed the many employees honored at annual favoring government action to protect company to increase its reliance on banquets for years of service or exem- the apparel industry against a “flood” lower-cost imports.29 plary safety records.27 of imports. It contended, “Jobs are Catherine Rukavina pursued other The greatest impetus for women’s being placed in jeopardy” due to “an interests after Cluett, Peabody left union participation was job security. unfair game.”28 the Iron Range. A Milwaukee-based While Rukavina agonized over sparse For Rukavina and her union sis- manufacturer of women’s apparel, the attendance at Local 512 meetings, ters, these responses did not save Jack Winter Company, took over the Eveleth’s Angie Lautigar boasted, “We their jobs. Cluett, Peabody shuttered Arrow buildings, but Rukavina did had a very good union.” The average its Gilbert plant in 1977. The Eveleth not obtain work with the company. age of employees at the underwear and Virginia sites closed less than She found a new job at a community

SUMMER 2018 63 action agency until retiring in 1983. challenges gendered perspectives cesses of industrial decline are as Rukavina’s experiences over some conflating economic and labor union much about change as they are loss. 31 years in the apparel industry vitality with men’s employment. The The story of the Arrow factories lacks highlight working-class women’s 8,000 workers hired while Cluett, the romance underlying tales of Iron involvement in the modern American Peabody operated on the Iron Range Range women taking over mining labor movement. An institutional provide powerful evidence that the jobs during World War II. It has approach to labor history, emphasiz- region’s past involved much more received nowhere near the publicity ing union leaders and policies, does than mines. Indeed, during an inspec- devoted to women’s groundbreaking not adequately explain her partici- tion of Cluett, Peabody’s facilities in stand against sexual harassment at pation. In its official capacities, the 1948, Minnesota governor Luther Iron Range taconite mines during Amalgamated was decidedly male- Youngdahl described the plants “as the 1980s and 1990s. Nonetheless, dominated. Yet union membership dispelling the idea that the Range is the Arrow factories reshaped gen- was still meaningful to women like synonymous with iron ore.” More der relations in enduring ways. To Rukavina. It created new associations than a decade later, Finland’s presi- draw attention to these changes does that extended beyond the traditional dent Urho Kekkonen received gifts of not diminish the disruptive impact bonds of family, ethnicity, and reli- a miner’s helmet and an Arrow shirt caused by mining’s struggles, nor gion. Local 512 members exhibited during a tour of the region. In 1969, overlook how men’s fractured sense a potent form of agency when they the Mesabi Daily News celebrated both of self formed in conjunction with determined whether to toe or defy “Iron Ore and White Shirts” in its new roles for women. It does, how- the union lines informing those annual “Horizons Unlimited” feature. ever, underscore the extent to which attachments.30 For a place whose very name—the most histories of deindustrialization Iron Range—asserts mining’s primacy, privilege a masculine point of view. the Arrow factories test fundamen- The experiences of Frank Mancina, THE HISTORY of the Iron Range’s tal assumptions about the region’s Emma Petrick, and Catherine Arrow factories complicates stan- identity.31 Rukavina broaden this narrative by dard accounts of industrial decline Ultimately, the factories’ history showing the significance of industrial in the United States after 1945. It encourages us to consider that pro- change for Iron Range women.32

Notes

This article was made possible by a special gift Steven High and David W. Lewis, Corporate Press, Oct. 26, 1950, 1, 16; Chisholm Tribune- from longtime Minnesota Historical Society Wasteland: The Landscape and Memory of Dein- Herald, Jan. 23, 1947, 1, 8, June 2, 1949, 1, Oct. 26, member Frank C. Dowding. dustrialization (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 1950, 1; Mesabi Daily News, Jan. 16, 1947, 1, Nov. 27, Press, 2007); Lois Weis, Class Reunion: The 1967, 10; Eveleth News-Clarion , July 4, 1946, 1, 1. Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Remaking of the American White Working Class Sept. 5, 1946, 1; Gilbert Herald, Feb. 20, 1947, 1; Commission, Biennial Report, 1952–1954 (St. Paul, (New York: Routledge, 2004). Biennial Report, 1945–1947, 45–46. MN: Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation, 4. Eveleth News-Clarion , Feb. 13, 1947, 1, Oct. 2, 6. Chisholm Tribune-Herald , Sept. 18, 1947, 1; 1954), 5 (hereafter, Biennial Report); Biennial 1958, 1; James Mancina Sr. oral history, inter- Elmi Gozdanovich oral history, interviewed by Report, 1962–1964, 1. viewed by Mary Ellen Mancina-Batinich, May 6, Joan Larson, Aug. 31, 1980, Catherine Rukavina 2. Mesabi Daily News, Jan. 23, 1962, 1, 11. 1972, Mary Ellen Mancina-Batinich Collection, Collection, IRRC; Mesabi Daily News, Nov. 27, 3. Jeffrey T. Manuel, Taconite Dreams: The Immigration History Research Center Archives, 1967, 10; Maurice E. Berthiaume, “Training Struggle to Sustain Mining on Minnesota’s Iron University of Minnesota (hereafter, IHRCA); Mes- Shirtmakers at Cluett, Peabody,” Shirtmaking Range, 1915–2000 (Minneapolis: University of abi Daily News, Apr. 5, 1963, 1; Bernice White, ed., (Great Neck, NY: Kogos International Corp., Minnesota Press, 2015); David Bensman and Who’s Who in Minnesota, 1958 (Waseca, MN: ca. 1960), S–15. Roberta Lynch, Rusted Dreams: Hard Times in a Brown Printing Co., 1958), 473–74; Eveleth News, 7. Mesabi Daily News, Mar. 27, 1957, 1, 6, Nov. Steel Community (Berkeley: University of Califor- Apr. 11, 1963, 1, 13; Eveleth Scene, Jan. 5, 1996, 9. 18, 1959, 1, Nov. 14, 1962, 2, Apr. 12, 1963, 1, 9; St. nia Press, 1987); Steven High, Industrial Sunset: 5. Minneapolis Star and Journal, Oct. 24, 1946, Paul Pioneer Press, Mar. 27, 1957, 15; Records of The Making of North America’s Rust Belt, 1, 8; Range Facts, Sept. 25, 1947, 7; Edward Bayuk the Committee on Employees’ Compensation, 1969–1984 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, oral history, interviewed by Dana Miller, Jan. 10, Mar. 26, 1957, Committee Books, Minnesota 2003); Sherry Lee Linkon and John Russo, Steel- 1990, Iron Range Research Center, Chisholm, House of Representatives, Minnesota Historical town USA: Work and Memory in Youngstown (Law- MN (hereafter, IRRC); Ben Constantine oral Society, St. Paul (hereafter, MNHS); Gilbert Her- rence: University Press of Kansas, 2002); history, interviewed by Mary Ellen Mancina- ald, Feb. 14, 1952, 1; Records of the Committee on Jefferson Cowie and Joseph Heathcott, eds., Batinich, July 10, 1984, IHRCA; Anthony Rainaldi Industrial and Employee Relations, Mar. 29, Beyond the Ruins: The Meanings of Deindustrializa- oral history, interviewed by Mary Ellen Mancina- 1963, Committee Books, Minnesota House of tion (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003); Batinich, July 8, 1985, IHRCA; Chisholm Free Representatives, MNHS; Chisholm Free Press,

64 MINNESOTA HISTORY July 8, 1988, IHRCA; Nancy Barnett interview Profile of a Union: The Amalgamated Clothing notes, interviewed by Betty Birnstihl, Feb. 2, Workers of America, AFL-CIO (New York: Comet 2013, VAHS. Press, 1958), 38–39; Sander Genis speech at the 15. Petrick oral history; Cluett, Peabody & American Home Economics Association, July Company, Inc., The Arrow Way (Troy, NY: Cluett, 1955, Sander D. Genis papers; Vera Miller, “Ever Peabody & Company, ca. 1936); Arthur W. Baum, Forward: A Short History of the Amalgamated “Your Neck Is Their Business,” Saturday Evening Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO” (1962), Post, Nov. 24, 1951, 37, 89; Chisholm Tribune- 44–46, Sander D. Genis papers. Herald, Sept. 25, 1947, 1. 26. Samuel and Rhodes, Profile of a Union, 16. Petrick oral history; Cecile Lakin oral his- 44–52; Mesabi Daily News, Sept. 5, 1975, 2, Feb. tory, interviewed by Joan Larson, Feb. 18, 1984, 26, 1989, 4A; Rukavina oral history. Iron Range Historical Society, McKinley, MN 27. Mesabi Daily News, Nov. 2, 1957, 10, Oct. (hereafter, IRHS); Mildred Hiti oral history, inter- 14, 1960, 1, Nov. 2, 1968, 7, Oct. 31, 1973, 9, Feb. viewed by the author, Feb. 27, 2018; Betty Birns- 26, 1989, 4A, Mar. 7, 2008, C3; Gilbert Herald, Dec. tihl, “Arrow Factories on the Range,” Heritage Arrow factory employees on break. 18, 1947, 1, Feb. 26, 1948, 1, Aug. 5, 1948, 1, Nov. 4, News 35, no. 2 (2013): 2; Gloria Folman interview 1948, 1, Dec. 29, 1949, 1, Nov. 2, 1950, 1, Dec. 28, notes, interviewed by Betty Birnstihl, Jan. 24, 1950, 1, Dec. 17, 1953, 1; Chisholm Tribune-Herald , June 30, 1949, 1, Aug. 4, 1949, 20; Range Facts, 2013, VAHS; Helen MacInnis oral history, inter- July 22, 1948, 1, Apr. 12, 1951, 9, Dec. 27, 1951, 1; May 8, 1952, 1; Chisholm Tribune-Herald , May 8, viewed by the author, Mar. 9, 2018; Giovanna Eveleth News-Clarion , Jan. 23, 1947, 1, Mar. 24, 1952, 1, 10. Serra Gentilini oral history, interviewed by Mary 1949, 10, June 16, 1949, 7; Eveleth News, July 13, 8. Mesabi Daily News, Oct. 21, 1946, 10; Range Ellen Mancina-Batinich, Mar. 3, 1988, IHRCA. 1967, 1; Cluett, Peabody Spotlight (Apr. 1954): 15; Facts, Oct. 24, 1946, 1; Gilbert Herald, Sept. 25, 17. Gentilini oral history; Kirby oral history; “Winter Comes to Minnesota,” Cluett, Peabody 1947, 1. Mesabi Daily News, Oct. 25, 1946, 3; Vera Kivisto Spotlight (Feb. 1954): 3–5; Petrick oral history; 9. Mesabi Daily News, July 3, 1946, 1, May 1, oral history, interviewed by Joan Larson, Sept. 16, Hiti oral history. 1948, 1–2, Nov. 4, 1955, 1–2, June 1, 1978, 1; Eveleth 1983, IRHS. 28. Mesabi Daily News, Nov. 28, 1970, 3, Sept. News-Clarion, Jan. 8, 1948, 1, May 6, 1948, 1; Duluth 18. Petrick oral history; Esther Brunfelt oral 5, 1975, 2, June 2, 1978, 1A, Feb. 26, 1989, 4A; News-Tribune, Nov. 4, 1955, 12; Governor Orville L. history, interviewed by Jeanne Maki, Mar. 9, 2006, Miller, “Ever Forward,” 43–44. Freeman speech at the Minnesota Resources IRRC. 29. Gilbert Herald, Oct. 5, 1977, 1; Eveleth Conference (Hibbing, MN), Nov. 17, 1955, Orville L. 19. Petrick oral history; Folman interview Range Scene, June 7, 1978, 3, Mar. 7, 1979, 1; Mes- Freeman papers, MNHS; Gilbert Herald, Aug. 23, notes. abi Daily News, June 1, 1978, 1A, June 2, 1978, 1A, 1951, 1; Eveleth News, June 27, 1963, 1. 20. MacInnis oral history; Petrick oral history; Mar. 14, 1979, 1; Rukavina oral history; Duluth 10. Mesabi Daily News, Oct. 30, 1946, 12, Mary Rainaldi oral history, interviewed by Mary News-Tribune , June 1, 1978, 1A, June 2, 1978, 5A. Nov. 1, 1946, 2, Apr. 28, 1958, 1, Nov. 14, 1962, 1–2; Ellen Mancina-Batinich, June 28, 1989, IHRCA; 30. Eveleth Range Scene, Feb. 21, 1979, 1, Apr. Virginia Kirby oral history, interviewed by Joan Mesabi Daily News, Feb. 26, 1989, 4A; Hiti oral his- 11, 1979, 1; Rukavina oral history; Ruth Milkman, Larson, Aug. 29, 1980, Catherine Rukavina Col- tory. On Gender, Labor, and Inequality (Urbana: Univer- lection, IRRC; Mary Mancina oral history, inter- 21. Mesabi Daily News, Oct. 31, 1973, 9; Petrick sity of Illinois Press, 2016); Joan M. Jensen and Sue viewed by Mary Ellen Mancina-Batinich, Apr. 9, oral history; Joanne Meyerowitz, ed., Not June Davidson, eds., A Needle, A Bobbin, A Strike: Women 1978, IHRCA. Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, Needleworkers in America (Philadelphia: Temple 11. Constantine oral history; Henry Pappone 1945–1960 (Philadelphia: Temple University University Press, 1984); Michelle Haberland, Strik- oral history, interviewed by Mary Ellen Mancina- Press, 1994); Dorothy Sue Cobble, The Other ing Beauties: Women Apparel Workers in the US Batinich, Sept. 4, 1984, IHRCA; Chisholm Tribune- Women’s Movement: Workplace Justice and Social South, 1930–2000 (Athens: University of Georgia Herald, Oct. 26, 1950, 10; Francine Gunderson Rights in Modern America (Princeton, NJ: Prince- Press, 2015); Karen Pastorello, A Power among interview notes, interviewed by Betty Birnstihl, ton University Press, 2004); Alice Kessler-Harris, Them: Bessie Abramowitz Hillman and the Making Apr. 10, 2013, Virginia Area Historical Society, Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America Virginia, MN (hereafter, VAHS). the United States (New York: Oxford University (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2008). 12. Mesabi Daily News, Apr. 9, 1963, 4, Jan. 18, Press, 1982); Alice Kessler-Harris, In Pursuit of 31. Mesabi Daily News, May 1, 1948, 1, Oct. 26, 1964, 1–2; Eveleth News, Apr. 9, 1964, 7; Thomas Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic 1961, 1, 12, Jan. 31, 1969, 10, Feb. 26, 1989, 4A; Dublin, When the Mines Closed: Stories of Struggles Citizenship in 20th-Century America (New York: Chisholm Tribune-Herald , May 6, 1948, 1. in Hard Times (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Oxford University Press, 2001). 32. Stephanie Hemphill, “Women in the Press, 1998); Karen Olson, Wives of Steel: Voices 22. Catherine Rukavina oral history, inter- Mines,” Minnesota History 61, no. 3 (2008): 92–101; of Women from the Sparrows Point Steelmaking viewed by Lisa Radosevich Pattni, July 18, 1988, Clara Bingham and Laura Leedy Gansler, Class Communities (University Park: Pennsylvania IRRC. Action: The Story of Lois Jenson and the Landmark State University Press, 2005); Thomas Dublin 23. Rukavina oral history; “The Clothing Case that Changed Sexual Harassment Law (New and Walter Licht, The Face of Decline: The Pennsyl- Workers’ Union,” Life, June 28, 1948, 86; Hyman York: Doubleday, 2002). vania Anthracite Region in the Twentieth Century Bookbinder, To Promote the General Welfare: The (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005); Story of the Amalgamated (New York: Amalgam- Judith Modell, A Town Without Steel: Envisioning ated Clothing Workers of America, 1950), 66–73; Photo on p. 54, Carl O. Pederson photographic Homestead (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pitts- “Brief History Outline of the Amalgamated Cloth- collection, Iron Range Research Center, burgh Press, 1998). ing Workers of America” (1954), Sander D. Genis Chisholm, MN (hereafter, IRRC); p. 55, 57, 58 13. Emma Petrick oral history, interviewed papers, MNHS; Sander Genis oral history, inter- (top), 60, 63, Cluett, Peabody & Co. collection, by Gloria Anderson, Oct. 12, 1993, IRRC; Hibbing viewed by James Dooley, Nov. 6, 1974, MNHS. IRRC; p. 58 (bottom), 65, Emma Petrick collec- Daily Tribune, Oct. 21, 1974, 8, June 28, 1994, A6. 24. Rukavina oral history; Gentilini oral his- tion, IRRC; p. 59, from “Training Shirtmakers at 14. Petrick oral history; Chisholm Free Press, tory; Mesabi Daily News, Sept. 5, 1975, 2. Cluett, Peabody,” in Shirtmaking https://catalog Sept. 18, 1952, 1, 16; Chisholm Tribune-Herald , 25. Rukavina oral history; Mesabi Daily News, .hathitrust.org/Record/009873988; p. 62 (top) Sept. 18, 1952, 1, 8; Mary Rainaldi oral history, Jan. 31, 2007, B5; Baum, “Your Neck Is Their Busi- courtesy Tom Rukavina; p. 62 (bottom), Sander interviewed by Mary Ellen Mancina-Batinich, ness,” 36; Howard D. Samuel and Lynne Rhodes, Genis Papers P353, MNHS Collections.

SUMMER 2018 65

Copyright of Minnesota History is the property of the Minnesota Historical Society, and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or users or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission: contact us.

Individuals may print or download articles for personal use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us. Include the author’s name and article title in the body of your message. But first--

If you think you may need permission, here are some guidelines:

Students and researchers • You do not need permission to quote or paraphrase portions of an article, as long as your work falls within the fair use provision of copyright law. Using information from an article to develop an argument is fair use. Quoting brief pieces of text in an unpublished paper or thesis is fair use. Even quoting in a work to be published can be fair use, depending on the amount quoted. Read about fair use here: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html • You should, however, always credit the article as a source for your work.

Teachers • You do not need permission to incorporate parts of an article into a lesson. • You do need permission to assign an article, either by downloading multiple copies or by sending students to the online pdf. There is a small per-copy use fee for assigned reading. Contact us for more information.

About Illustrations • Minnesota History credits the sources for illustrations at the end of each article. Minnesota History itself does not hold copyright on images and therefore cannot grant permission to reproduce them. • For information on using illustrations owned by the Minnesota Historical Society, see MHS Library FAQ.