building the golden gate bridge: a workers' oral history

7/25/2019 Building the Golden Gate Bridge: A Workers' Oral History

1/22

A WORKERS

ORAL HISTORY

HARVEY SCHWARTZ


2/22


3/22


4/22

A WORKERS

ORAL HISTORY

Seattle and London

HARVEY SCHWARTZ


5/22

by the University o Washington PressPrinted and bound in the United States o AmericaDesign by Tomas Eykemans

Composed in Minion, typeace designed by Robert SlimbachDisplay type set in Futura, designed by Paul Renner

All rights reserved. No part o this publication may be reproduced or transmitted inany orm or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording,or any inormation storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing rom thepublisher.

www.washington.edu/uwpress

--

Schwartz, Harvey. Building the Golden Gate Bridge : a workers oral history / Harvey Schwartz. First edition. p. cm. Includes bibliographical reerences and index. ---- (hardcover : alk. paper). Golden Gate Bridge (San Francisco, Cali.) . Construction workers

CaliorniaSan FranciscoInterviews. . Structural steel workersCaliorniaSan FranciscoInterviews. . Construction workersCaliorniaSan FranciscoBiography. . Structural steel workersCaliorniaSan FranciscoBiography.. San Francisco (Cali.)Biography. I. itle. 25.22535 .'dc

Te paper used in this publication is acid-ree and meets the minimum requirementso American National Standard or Inormation SciencesPermanence o Paper orPrinted Library Materials, ..

: Heaters and riveters at work on the Golden Gate Bridge (detail).Copyright Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and ransportation District.


6/22

In memory o the eleven and others now gone,

and or M, D, and K


7/22


8/22

CONTENTS

Introduction

Fred Divita FIELD ENGINEER

John Noren ELEVATOR MAN

Glenn McIntyre IRONWORKER

John Urban CABLE SPINNER

Fred Brusati ELECTRICIAN

Martin Adams LABORER

Evan C. Slim Lambert SURVIVOR

Al Zampa LEGEND

Mary Zita Felciano and Patricia DeWeese NURSES

Walter Vestnys and Joyce Big J Harris

MAINTENANCE IRONWORKERS

Epilogue

Acknowledgments

Notes

Further Reading Index


9/22


10/22


11/22


12/22


13/22


14/22

INTRODUCTION 5

book presents the speakers ull stories to the public, many or the first

time, more than seventy-five years afer the completion o construction.

O the ourteen individuals represented, nine were bridge workers in

the s, a handul o survivors rom an army originally numbering in

the hundreds yet representing a variety o trades and exempliying what

historians generally know about the world o the American worker in

the Depression. Rounding out their narratives are the testimonies o our

women and one man whose lie stories intersect with the bridges history.

Te Further Reading section describes the best books about the con-

struction o the Gate, or the Gate Bridge, as many s bridge workers

called it. Most sources ocus on the celebrity engineers, architects, and

designers; the technological innovations and achievements; the pre-construction politics; and the exceptional beauty o what the Caliornia

historian Kevin Starr pronounced Americas greatest bridge. A ew

mention the workers and their hardships. At least three volumes, pub-

lished around the fifieth anniversary o the bridge, give serious attention

to the spans construction personnel.But none o the major narratives

consistently trains the spotlight on the workers and their lives beyond

their daily labor.Tis book lets the ones doing the work tell their lie

stories in depth and in their own words.

Who were these people? Where did they come rom? What were their

backgrounds? Not surprisingly, several bridge workers profiled in this

book were children o the countrys new immigrants, the many recently

minted Americans who swelled the ranks o the U.S. labor orce between

and . Tis flood o immigrants peaked between and ,

when more than a million people arrived in each o six major waves.

Tousands came rom Russia, Poland, Austria-Hungary, the Balkans,and Italy. Afer , the last o those peak years, World War I and sub-

sequent changes in American immigration policy reduced the numbers

coming to the United States or many decades. In , however, nearly

a million and a quarter people immigrated to the United States, a scant

percent rom northern and western Europe and approximately

percent rom southern and eastern European countries.Tousands

o these immigrants and their children became workers in Americas

manuacturing plants and heavy construction industries. Teir immi-

grant origins significantly defined who they were and how they viewed

their world.


15/22

6 INTRODUCTION

Beyond their status as the children o new Americans, what did bridge

builders say about their working conditions and the mid-s revital-

ization o unionism in the construction trades? What was work actually

like on the bridge, in a climate that was ofen cold, wet, and windy? How

did builders adapt their gear to survive the day saely and with as little

discomort as possible? How did they cope with the tragic accidents they

describe here in harrowing detail? As members o the working class, did

they view their tasks and the Golden Gate Bridge project differently rom

the way politicians, regional boosters, and the general public did? How,

too, did they evaluate the wider politics and economics o their time?

What did they think o the worker-riendly New Deal and the watershed

union events o their day, such as the West Coast maritime and SanFrancisco general strikes o ?Finally, what happened to them afer

the Golden Gate Bridge was finished? How did they reflect on their roles

in the building o that world-amous landmark?

Oral history answers such questions with a vividness and drama

rarely matched in traditional historical accounts, as exemplified by

Evan Slim Lamberts tale o surviving a near-death ordeal. Tese first-

person accounts offer us rare insights into the experience o workers

who persevered through danger and hardship to build a bridge that

became the internationally recognized symbol o San Francisco and all

o Northern Caliornia.

Te idea or this book grew out o a project undertaken in by

Lynn A. Bonfield, ounding director o the Labor Archives and Research

Center (LARC) at San Francisco State University. Bonfield was at the

time planning a celebration o the bridges fifieth birthday. She secured

a grant rom the Caliornia Council or the Humanities and hired me tointerview veteran bridge workers while she and her staff collected his-

torical photographs and other graphics. When the anniversary came in

spring , Bonfield staged a highly successul public event that eatured

speeches by union leaders, politicians, academics, and bridge workers;

excerpts rom my interviews; pictures; and a display o s worker

equipment.I recognized even then the raw materials or a ascinating

volume o oral history, even though I was unable to turn to the project

until many years later.

Proessional oral historians customarily deine the interviews I

intended to conduct as ull lie histories, long the standard in the field.


16/22

INTRODUCTION 7

Full lie histories probe a persons recollections rom early lie through

retirement. Most o the individuals quoted in this book sat or ull lie

narratives. When I started the project in , I had just finished a six-

year research job that included interviews with members o the

International Longshore and Warehouse Union or a National Endow-

ment or the Humanitiesunded oral history project cosponsored by the

ILWU and the Institute or the Study o Social Change at the University

o Caliornia, Berkeley. Although I was originally trained in traditional

document- and archive-based research at the University o Caliornia,

Davis, by the labor historian David Brody, I had thus acquired substantial

interview experience and had pored over the scholarly literature on oral

history. Bonfield, hersel an accomplished oral historian, also providedinvaluable advice about interviewing priorities and questions on the

bridge project.

Te construction workers who sat or recordings, listed here with

their Golden Gate Bridge jobs, included Fred Divita, a paint scraper

and field engineer; John Noren, an elevator builder; Glenn McIntyre,

Al Zampa, Walter Vestnys, and Joyce Big J Harris, ironworkers; John

Urban, a cable spinner, which was a type o ironworker; Fred Brusati, an

electrician; Martin Adams, a laborer; Evan C. Slim Lambert, a labor

oreman; and Bert Vestnys, a truck driver. I also interviewed Alvina

McIntyre, Glenn McIntyres wie, as well as Sister Mary Zita Felciano

and Patricia DeWeese, two nurses who had cared or seriously injured

bridge men in the s.

Te roles o women have been largely omitted rom histories o the

bridge.I have tried to add to the record. Te reminiscences o the our

women quoted in this volume include those o the two nurses; GlennMcIntyres wie, Alvina; and Joyce Harris, an Arican American iron-

worker who perormed maintenance on the bridge in the late s

and early s.Although no women builders and almost no Arican

American men worked on the bridges original construction, the crews

required or ongoing maintenance have achieved a measure o diversity.

Tus Harriss recollections help to update the story.

Except or two individuals, I interviewed all the people quoted in this

book or the LARC project. Te late Isabelle Maynard recorded the

interview with Al Zampa in . I interviewed Joyce Harris in or

Jo Kreiter, ounder and choreographer o Flyaway Productions, who was


17/22

8 INTRODUCTION

preparing a dance program in celebration o post-s women bridge

workers. All interviews represented here were originally recorded on ana-

log tape cassettes (now digitized by LARC) and are on permanent deposit

at LARC in San Francisco, along with transcriptions o the recording

sessions, which range rom thirty to a hundred pages each. Several ses-

sions were significantly longer than others because some interviewees

spoke in great depth. welve o the interviews were ull lie; two were

more limited in scope, owing to circumstances surrounding the tape

sessions, but still added unique and valuable inormation.

Preparing recorded material or a book o oral histories always

requires decisions about the extent o permissible editorial changes.

Verbatim transcriptions o interviews are invariably too rambling androughshod or unedited publication. I have thus made some adjustments

in the transcripts, but always within strict guidelines. o emphasize the

orce and drama o the words o the quoted workers, I have eliminated

my own questions and comments. I have also excised redundant and

extraneous material, such as hesitations and irrelevant pleasantries. At

times I have rearranged material or combined repeated accounts by the

same person to improve continuity and clarity. o assess the accuracy o

interviewees memories beore using material in this book, I compared

several oral descriptions o the same events and consulted the existing

written record. Only when absolutely necessary to avoid conusion have

I added or corrected a name or date or inserted a small transitional

detail. At all times, I have retained my subjects style o speech, tone, and

meaning in the knowledge that these give oral history its authenticity

and credibility.

My goal has been to ollow the advice o oral history authorities suchas Sherna Berger Gluck and Donald A. Ritchie. In editing, Gluck wrote

about her own pathbreaking work in , care was taken to preserve

each individuals speaking style and syntax. False starts and repetitions

were removedunless they revealed something about the interviewee or

represented her speech pattern. Words or phrases were added only when

necessary or clarity. Later Gluck added, Although I tried to preserve

the narrators thought process, passages relating to the same topic were

ofen drawn together rom different places in the interview.Writing

seven years afer Gluck, Ritchielong held to be one o the leading

arbiters o oral history methodologyobserved, Editing and rearrang-


18/22

INTRODUCTION 9

ing interviews or clarification and cutting away tangential material are

appropriate so long as the original meaning is retained.Tese are the

standards I have adhered to.

Te idea o bridging the Bay to connect San Francisco and the counties to

the north dates back to the nineteenth century. Joshua Norton, an eccentric

San Franciscan and sel-proclaimed Emperor o the United States and

Protector o Mexico, proposed such a project in . Emperor Nor-

tons suggestion did not stimulate serious action, but fify years later San

Francisco City Engineer Michael M. OShaughnessy initiated what wouldbecome the successul effort to build a bridge. About OShaughnessy,

regionally known or championing construction o the dam in the Hetch

Hetchy valley o Yosemite National Park to supply water to San Francisco,

entered into conversations with Joseph B. Strauss, already a bridge engineer

o national standing, about the easibility o spanning the Golden Gate.

In the early s, OShaughnessy and Strauss publicly cosponsored

the idea o building a bridge afer a design by Strauss that would have

combined cantilever and suspension styles.Many viewed this hybrid

concept as unprepossessing, even ugly, but Strauss promoted the bridge

idea vigorously. As San Francisco Bay erryboat traffic became increas-

ingly congested in the s, owing to growing reliance on automobile

transportation, Strauss attracted a ollowing despite the militarys doubts

about the project and the opposition o the erry companies.

Te War Department, as it was then known, had the authority to

block a bridge project that might interere with military priorities. Butafer much hesitation, lengthy debate, and hearings, the military finally

issued a building permit in . Te erry companies, under the lead-

ership o Southern Pacific Railroad (which owned a subsidiary erry

company), continued to fight the project in an effort to retain control

o all transportation revenues. Local anti-bridge litigation also delayed

progress until late , when the Caliornia State Legislature finally cre-

ated a Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District to oversee the spans

design and construction.

Te new Bridge District comprised the six counties that supported

its ounding, including San Francisco and, to the north, Marin, Sonoma,


19/22

10 INTRODUCTION

Del Norte, and parts o Mendocino and Napa counties. In Strauss

became the projects chie engineer. Te ollowing year, district residents

voted to approve the financing o the bridges construction through a

million bond measure. Unortunately, the Depression had seriously

undermined the bond market, and the Bridge District ound ew buy-

ers or its bonds until A. P. Giannini o the Bank o America saved the

threatened project by having his institution purchase a huge allotment.

Te nearby mid-s Bay Bridge building project connecting San

Francisco to Oakland benefited rom much ederal support. In contrast,

the Golden Gate Bridge was completed without state or ederal unding.

Te only ederal money spent in connection with the Golden Gate project

was or a New Deal Works Progress Administration (WPA) approachroad at Sausalito in Marin County on the north side o the strait.

Many construction people who labored on the Golden Gate also

helped build the Bay Bridge because work on the two structures was

nearly concurrent. Te Bay Bridge went up between May and

November . (Te eastern segment o the Bay Bridge was replaced

in by a new span designed to be more earthquake-resistant than the

original crossing, but when workers in these interviews reer to the Bay

Bridge, they are talking about the one finished in .) An assortment

o local and national contracting firms built the Golden Gate Bridge in

stages between January , , and May , .

Sometime beore construction o the Golden Gate Bridge began, the

graceul all-suspension concept that made the structure world amous

replaced Strausss ungainly design or a hybrid cantilever-suspension

bridge. Te exact moment o this decision is unclear. Nonetheless,

Leon Moisseiff, a suspension-bridge expert engaged with others on aconsulting panel set up by the new Bridge District, advocated strongly

or the change.

Te district panel consultant Charles A. Ellis, a ormer proessor o

engineering at the University o Illinois and a master o mathematical

bridge design, was responsible or the complex calculations that made

possible the .-mile structure, which reigned or twenty-seven years as

the longest single-span suspension bridge in the world. As an employee

o Strausss Chicago-based firm, Ellis also artully designed the bridges

classical arch above Fort Point, installed to preserve that historically

important preCivil War ortification, which today still stands on the


20/22

INTRODUCTION 11

San Francisco shoreline underneath the spans southern end. Ellis never

received the public credit he deserved or his role in the bridges design

and engineering success, largely because o disagreements he had with

Strauss, who fired him rom his firm in December . Shortly beore

construction began, Strauss hired Russell Cone, a ormer student o

Elliss and himsel an accomplished suspension-bridge engineer, as the

project supervisor in charge o all work crews. For years Strauss got the

credit or Elliss calculations, although that honor sometimes gravitated

to Clifford Paine, Strausss second in command, who requently assumed

control in the chie engineers absence.

When completed, the great bridge would rise eet above the

water at midspan. wo soaring -oot steel towers with art deco linesdesigned by Irving F. Morrow, a Northern Caliornia architect and illus-

trator, would support its suspension system. Morrow also contributed

to the choice o the bridges ultimate color, an orange-vermilion called

international orange, which added to the structures beauty and har-

monized with the earthy tones o the surrounding hills, opening dra-

matically to the sea. Fortunately, international orange won out over

the urging o military leaders that the bridge should be painted with

horizontal stripes or visibilitythe navy wanted black and yellow

stripes, while the army Air Corps avored orange and white. Curiously,

the striking visual appeal o the bridges red lead-based primer paint

inspired the final color.

Te building o the two massive towers progressed at quite different

paces. Te Marin tower to the north rose rather smoothly and quickly

because it was set near the lands edge. Workers utilized a large cofferdam

filled with tons o concrete to make a pier or the north tower, completedby mid-.A little more than a year later, ironworkers finished erect-

ing the Marin tower itsel.

Te San Francisco tower to the south, though, was situated more than

a thousand eet offshore in dangerous tidal water, and work progressed

more slowly there than on the north side. Te south-side tower was to

be constructed on a oundation anchored in the ocean by a huge caisson

floated into place, sunk, and then filled with concrete to become part

o the towers pier.Deep-sea divers entering the water rom a barge

searched the sea floor or places where wells could be dynamited to secure

the oundation pier in bedrock. Tey worked between powerul tides


21/22


22/22

INTRODUCTION 13

injuries or died. On the Golden Gate Bridge job, where a all along most

o the span would be more than two hundred eet, death seemed all but

certain without the net.

Fred Divita, whose testimony orms chapter , oversaw the saety nets

installation. By late , the net was up. At that point in the bridges

construction, only one worker had died: on October , just as the last

wire suspender ropes were going in and the steel roadway was near-

ing completion, a moving derrick had allen and killed Kermit Moore.

Unortunately, even the new net did not guarantee complete saety. On

February , , a huge timber scaffolding holding a work crew gave way

and tore through the net, plunging the whole apparatus and twelve men

into the sea below. Only two survived the all. One was Slim Lambert,who recalls his harrowing experience here in chapter .

Te ten workers who died that February were Fred Dummatzen (a

man Lambert tried mightily to rescue), O. A. Anderson, Chris Ander-

son, Bill Bass, Orrill Desper, erence Hallinan, Eldridge Hillen, Charles

Lindros, Jack Norman, and Louis Russell. Balanced against this traumatic

event, Strausss net saved the lives o nineteen men who ell into it dur-

ing the spans construction. Given an early twentieth-century business

ormulaone workers death or every million dollars spent on bridge

constructionthe eleven lives lost on the million Golden Gate project

would have been judged a good saety record, especially compared with

that o the concurrent Bay Bridge job, with no saety net and twenty-

our deaths.

Despite the tragedy o February , , and some investigations that

ollowed, construction o the Golden Gate Bridge went ahead essentially

as planned. Tat April the men finished paving the bridges roadway. OnMay , the Golden Gate Bridge officially opened to the public with great

regional anare and a celebratory walk across the span by thousands o

people. Te next day the new bridge received automobile traffic. Almost

immediately the structure was acclaimed as one o the industrial and

engineering wonders o the world.Te workers, though, still had stories

o their own to tell. You will hear some o them in the testimonies that

enliven the pages to come.

building the golden gate bridge: a workers' oral history

Documents