It was interesting reading the same situations described by different authors. In their article, Piven and Cloward talk about the sit-down strikes and its success in getting the employees' voice heard. Fantasia mentions the same successful action, but gives a further explanation as to why it was successful. Reading Piven's and Cloward's text, I thought it was solely because of the spontaneity and solidarity of the sit-down strikes. With Fantasia's text, I was able to further understand the sit-down strikes were more successful than the usual outright forceful strikes was because the industrialists were also afraid to have their property/ machines ruined if they called for help (policy, militia, etc).

In the end, it seems humans like to resort to violence to solve problems. How some of the strikes ended up in severe wounds and deaths made me, once again, think of Rousseau's writing. I remember him saying how in the natural state humans fought it out and got over the disagreements. However, in the modern society, the hateful feelings are harbored and causes high crime rates, murders, etc. The violence used in ending strikes during the Industrial Workers' Movement exemplifies Rousseau's opinion.

One more thing I found interesting was.. the companies spend so much money on spies to prevent unionization and forces/munitions for "strike duty".. why not just settle into an agreement with employees and have a portion of that money given to them as wages? Also, when employees go on strike, companies lose a lot of money.. so isn't a better choice to raise the wages of employees by a little which decreases their hostility and their thoughts of rebelling? As businessmen, shouldn't they have thought of it in that end...? Is it their pride that won't allow them to give in to employees' wants?