{"content_id":"immluxnr4i","slug":"triangle-factory-fire-new-york-safety-law-reform","locale":"en","schema_type":"Article","category":"case_study","category_name":"Case Study","title":"Triangle Factory Fire and New York State Safety Reforms","summary":"After the 1911 Triangle Factory fire, demands from workers and reform groups led to the creation of the New York State Factory Investigating Commission. Site inspections and hearings provided the basis for revisions to safety and health laws in 1912 and 1913.","sponsorship_disclosure":null,"affiliate_disclosure":null,"commerce_disclosure":null,"author":{"name":"Injoys Editorial Team","url":"https://injoys.com/ko/about"},"key_points":["The Triangle Factory fire on March 25, 1911, killed 146 people.","At a memorial rally, Rose Schneiderman emphasized the movement for workers to organize themselves.","The New York State Factory Investigating Commission documented working conditions through site inspections and public hearings.","The 1912 to 1913 revisions expanded from fire safety regulations to a reorganization of the Department of Labor.","The factory owners' acquittal in their criminal trial should not be mistaken for a finding that the factory was safe."],"content_markdown":"The 1911 Triangle factory fire in New York **killed 146 people**. Workers and reform groups demanded safety measures. New York State revised its safety and health laws through an investigating commission. The fire is remembered as a case in which collective demands led to preventive measures.\n\nThis article follows records from Cornell University and the New York State Archives, checked in October 2026.\n\n## Working Conditions and Safety Problems Before the Fire\n\nThe dangers at the Triangle factory were part of poor working conditions that had existed before the fire. The factory occupied the 8th through 10th floors of Manhattan’s Asch Building. Many of its workers were young immigrant women. A shirtwaist was a blouse worn by women at the time.\n\nLow wages and long hours encouraged workers to organize. Triangle workers took part in the 1909 garment industry strike. The demands raised after the fire grew out of that experience. This background is covered in the [National Park Service’s historical account](https://www.nps.gov/places/triangle-shirtwaist-factory-brown-building.htm).\n\nDuring the fire on March 25, 1911, several means of escape failed. Cornell University’s account says workers could not open the 9th-floor door. The external fire escape did not provide a safe way out. Fire department ladders could not reach the floors where people needed rescue.\n\n| Problem exposed | Effect on escape and rescue | Distinction to keep in mind when reading the records |\n|---|---|---|\n| Door that would not open | Blocked the way to the stairs | Testimony about the door’s condition and the owners’ knowledge are separate issues |\n| Weak external fire escape | Failed as an evacuation route | Having a fire escape was not the same as being able to use it |\n| Limited reach of rescue equipment | Made rescue from upper floors difficult | Outside rescue alone could not ensure safety |\n\nThis table is based on [Cornell University’s account of the fire](https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/story/fire.html).\n\n## Timeline: From Workers’ Demands to Legislation\n\nReform moved from protests immediately after the disaster to investigations and legislation over several years. Memorial gatherings brought working conditions into public debate. The investigating commission gathered evidence to examine those demands. Legislation followed over several years.\n\n| Date | Event and change | Supporting record |\n|---|---|---|\n| 1909 | Triangle workers took part in the garment industry strike | National Park Service historical account |\n| March 25, 1911 | Triangle factory fire | Cornell University account of the fire |\n| April 2, 1911 | Schneiderman stressed the need for a labor movement at a memorial gathering | Speech held by the Kheel Center |\n| June 30, 1911 | Law establishing the New York State Factory Investigating Commission was enacted | Commission’s 1912 preliminary report |\n| From October 1911 | Public hearings held in several New York State cities | New York State Archives guide to commission records |\n| December 27, 1911 | Not-guilty verdict in the factory owners’ criminal trial | Cornell University account of the trial |\n| 1912 | Legislation on factory registration, automatic sprinklers and related rules | New York State Archives guide to commission records |\n| 1913 | Reorganization of the Department of Labor and additional safety and health legislation | New York State Archives guide to commission records |\n| February 1915 | Investigating commission submitted its final report | New York State Archives guide to commission records |\n\n## What Rose Schneiderman Demanded at the Memorial Gathering\n\nRose Schneiderman emphasized organized action by workers. She spoke at the Metropolitan Opera House on April 2, 1911. The Kheel Center holds the speech under the title “We Have Found You Wanting.” It first appeared in *The Survey* on April 8, 1911.\n\n\u003e The only way they can save themselves is by a strong working-class movement.\n\u003e\n\u003e Rose Schneiderman, “We Have Found You Wanting,” copy held by Cornell University’s Kheel Center\n\nThe speech argues that charity for bereaved families alone would not change working conditions. It also points to pressure from public authorities against workers’ protests. It ends by proposing a movement organized by workers themselves as the solution. These points appear in the [speech published by the Kheel Center](https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/testimonials/ootss_RoseSchneiderman.html).\n\nTreating this speech as a demand for a particular piece of equipment would narrow its meaning. Its central claim is that workers must be the agents of improving their conditions. In the reforms that followed, union activity and demands for legislation developed together.\n\n## How the Factory Investigating Commission Turned Demands Into Evidence\n\nThe New York State Factory Investigating Commission combined site inspections with hearings. The law establishing it was enacted on **June 30, 1911**. The commission had the authority to require witnesses to appear and documents to be produced. Its legal basis was Chapter 561 of the New York State laws of 1911.\n\nState legislators Robert Wagner and Alfred Smith led the commission. Frances Perkins also took part in the investigation and site visits. These connections helped move the findings onto the legislative agenda. Their roles are explained in the [U.S. Department of Labor’s history of the commission](https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/mono-regsafepart07).\n\nThe commission did not limit itself to the causes of the fire at one factory. It also investigated ventilation, sanitation and occupational diseases. It examined whether existing laws were being enforced. The scope of the investigation is set out in the [1912 preliminary report](https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/reports/LegislatureOfNYS.html).\n\n| Investigative method | Evidence gathered | Role in considering legislation |\n|---|---|---|\n| Site inspections | Conditions of buildings, equipment and sanitation | Identified hazards repeated across factories |\n| Public hearings | Testimony from workers, employers, officials and others | Added firsthand experience and explanations to the official record |\n| Questionnaires and written submissions | Proposals from experts, labor groups and others | Helped assess improvements and problems with regulations |\n| Review of existing laws | Regulations and their enforcement | Helped determine the need for new rules and administrative changes |\n\nHearings were held in Buffalo, Rochester and other places as well as New York City. They provided a way to put workers’ experiences into the public record. The methods of investigation are described in the [New York State Archives guide to the commission’s records](https://www.archives.nysed.gov/node/361137).\n\n## What Changed in Safety and Health Laws in 1912 and 1913?\n\nThe revisions addressed both safety equipment rules and the administrative bodies that would enforce them. In 1912, provisions concerning factory registration and automatic sprinklers became law. The Department of Labor was reorganized in 1913. Restrictions on women’s night work were also included in the legislation.\n\n| Area | Problem raised by the investigation | Direction of reform |\n|---|---|---|\n| Fire prevention and evacuation | Too few exits and inadequate escape facilities | Stronger fire safety rules, including sprinkler requirements |\n| Worker health | Inadequate ventilation, washing facilities and toilets | Improved sanitation and health protections |\n| Oversight | Limits of existing labor laws and supervisory bodies | Factory registration and reorganization of the Department of Labor |\n| Working hours | Night work by women and other concerns | Protective rules, including restrictions on night work |\n\nThe commission also recommended more stairs and exits, alarm systems and other measures. Not every recommendation became law on the same day or to the same extent. The [New York State Archives guide](https://www.archives.nysed.gov/node/361137) distinguishes what was adopted in each year.\n\nNew York City pursued reforms separately from state legislation. In October 1911, the city moved to establish a Bureau of Fire Prevention. The measure was intended to reduce confusion among agencies over inspections and enforcement. This course of events is described in [Cornell University’s account of legislative reform](https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/legacy/legislativeReform.html).\n\n## How Did the Not-Guilty Verdict Differ From Safety Law Reform?\n\nThe criminal trial was a process for deciding whether the owners were criminally responsible. Preventive legislation was work to establish safety standards that would apply to other factories. Both processes began with the same disaster, but they addressed different questions.\n\nAccording to Cornell University’s account of the trial, workers testified that they could not open the door. At trial, the question was whether the owners knew it was locked. The jury returned a not-guilty verdict on December 27, 1911. That verdict should not be read as a finding that the factory was safe.\n\n| Distinction | Criminal trial | Investigating commission and legislation |\n|---|---|---|\n| Central question | Could the defendants be held criminally responsible? | What risks should be reduced through regulation? |\n| Subject of review | Actions and knowledge in a specific case | Working conditions and regulation across workplaces |\n| Outcome | Not-guilty verdict for the defendants | Changes to safety and health rules and the oversight system |\n\nA rule prohibiting locked doors already existed before the fire. Reform therefore also involved the enforcement of existing rules. The trial’s course is described in [Cornell University’s account of the investigation and trial](https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/story/investigationTrial.html).\n\n## Records and Interpretation\n\nRecords from the time and later accounts should be read with their different purposes in mind. Testimony records events as individuals experienced them. The commission’s reports presented findings and legislative recommendations. Historical accounts connect multiple records to explain the meaning of the changes.\n\n### What the Records Confirm\n\nThe Kheel Center’s introduction to the trial materials describes testimony from about 100 people. The full record has not survived intact, however. The complete text of Volume 2 is no longer available. Some of its contents have been supplemented by Leon Stein’s research notes.\n\nThis state of preservation is noted in the [Kheel Center’s introduction to the trial records](https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/trialRecords/introduction.html). The introduction itself should be distinguished from the original courtroom testimony. Anyone quoting an individual’s words directly should check that testimony separately.\n\n### An Interpretation Shared by Historical Accounts\n\nCornell University and the U.S. Department of Labor describe the fire as a turning point for reform. They also place it in the context of the existing labor movement and Progressive Era reform. It would therefore be difficult to say that one disaster created the whole of labor law.\n\n### Limits to What Can Be Confirmed\n\nTestimony about a locked door is distinct from proof of what the owners knew. The not-guilty verdict does not reject all the testimony about the door. Nor should a later historical account be presented as though it were the court’s ruling at the time.\n\nLegislative outcomes alone cannot measure how much actual risk fell. Records of legal changes show how the system changed. Assessing its effects after implementation would require additional inspection, enforcement and accident data.\n\n## Why Some Records Give the Death Toll as 145 and Others as 146\n\nThis article uses 146, the figure given in current accounts by Cornell University and public institutions. The text of the 1912 preliminary report, however, gives 145. The difference is a reason to distinguish the figure in the original document from the figure used in later accounts.\n\n| Record | Death toll given | How this article treats it |\n|---|---|---|\n| Page 13 of the commission’s 1912 preliminary report | 145 | Identified as the figure in the contemporary document |\n| Cornell University account of the fire | 146 | Used as the fire’s death toll |\n| Library of Congress historical guide | 146 | Cross-check for the figure in current accounts |\n\nThe excerpt from that report alone cannot establish how the difference arose. Silently changing 145 when quoting the original would alter the record. Conversely, using only 145 in an account of the event would conflict with current guides. Both the [1912 report](https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/reports/LegislatureOfNYS.html) and the [Library of Congress guide](https://guides.loc.gov/this-month-in-business-history/march/triangle-shirtwaist-factory-fire) need to be checked.\n\n## The Results of Reform and Their Meaning Today\n\nOne result of this case was that workers’ experiences became subjects of investigation and legal enforcement. Hazards were treated as public problems to be compared across workplaces. Reform extended beyond equipment standards to the bodies responsible for oversight.\n\nEven after the revisions, there were political efforts to weaken the rules. The U.S. Department of Labor’s account records opposition from employers’ associations. In 1915, supporters of the reforms held a rally to defend the laws. Maintaining the system remained necessary after the legislation passed.\n\nToday, this case is used to compare the conditions under which industrial safety systems work. Its significance lies in three connections:\n\n- The connection between workers raising concerns and their testimony entering the official record.\n- The connection between site investigations and specific preventive rules.\n- The connection between passing laws and continuing oversight and enforcement.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### Did the Fire Create American Labor Law for the First Time?\n\nState and local governments had labor safety rules before the fire. The Triangle fire exposed the limits of the existing system. New York State subsequently expanded and reorganized its rules and oversight system.\n\n### Did Schneiderman Call for Sprinklers?\n\nThe central point of the memorial speech examined here is the need for a strong labor movement. The quoted sentence does not call for sprinklers. Equipment recommendations should be distinguished from the speech and placed in the commission’s investigation and legislative process.\n\n### Did the Factory Investigating Commission Investigate Only the Fire?\n\nThe investigation expanded to sanitation, occupational diseases, working hours and other matters. It also examined enforcement of existing laws. The commission later investigated wage issues as well.\n\n### Why Did the Law Change if the Factory Owners Were Found Not Guilty?\n\nThe criminal trial and preventive legislation addressed different questions. The not-guilty verdict was not a reason to leave risks at other factories unaddressed. The investigating commission developed measures that could apply across workplaces.\n\n### Did the Legal Changes Eliminate Every Risk?\n\nThe records of legal changes alone cannot establish that outcome. Maintaining and enforcing the rules remained necessary. Their actual effect on safety must be assessed using records from after implementation.","content_html":"\u003cp\u003eThe 1911 Triangle factory fire in New York \u003cstrong\u003ekilled 146 people\u003c/strong\u003e. Workers and reform groups demanded safety measures. New York State revised its safety and health laws through an investigating commission. The fire is remembered as a case in which collective demands led to preventive measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article follows records from Cornell University and the New York State Archives, checked in October 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#working-conditions-and-safety-problems-before-the-fire\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"working-conditions-and-safety-problems-before-the-fire\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWorking Conditions and Safety Problems Before the Fire\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dangers at the Triangle factory were part of poor working conditions that had existed before the fire. The factory occupied the 8th through 10th floors of Manhattan’s Asch Building. Many of its workers were young immigrant women. A shirtwaist was a blouse worn by women at the time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLow wages and long hours encouraged workers to organize. Triangle workers took part in the 1909 garment industry strike. The demands raised after the fire grew out of that experience. This background is covered in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.nps.gov/places/triangle-shirtwaist-factory-brown-building.htm\"\u003eNational Park Service’s historical account\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the fire on March 25, 1911, several means of escape failed. Cornell University’s account says workers could not open the 9th-floor door. The external fire escape did not provide a safe way out. Fire department ladders could not reach the floors where people needed rescue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eProblem exposed\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eEffect on escape and rescue\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eDistinction to keep in mind when reading the records\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Problem exposed\"\u003eDoor that would not open\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Effect on escape and rescue\"\u003eBlocked the way to the stairs\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Distinction to keep in mind when reading the records\"\u003eTestimony about the door’s condition and the owners’ knowledge are separate issues\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Problem exposed\"\u003eWeak external fire escape\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Effect on escape and rescue\"\u003eFailed as an evacuation route\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Distinction to keep in mind when reading the records\"\u003eHaving a fire escape was not the same as being able to use it\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Problem exposed\"\u003eLimited reach of rescue equipment\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Effect on escape and rescue\"\u003eMade rescue from upper floors difficult\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Distinction to keep in mind when reading the records\"\u003eOutside rescue alone could not ensure safety\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis table is based on \u003ca href=\"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/story/fire.html\"\u003eCornell University’s account of the fire\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#timeline-from-workers-demands-to-legislation\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"timeline-from-workers-demands-to-legislation\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eTimeline: From Workers’ Demands to Legislation\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReform moved from protests immediately after the disaster to investigations and legislation over several years. Memorial gatherings brought working conditions into public debate. The investigating commission gathered evidence to examine those demands. Legislation followed over several years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eDate\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eEvent and change\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eSupporting record\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003e1909\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003eTriangle workers took part in the garment industry strike\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eNational Park Service historical account\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003eMarch 25, 1911\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003eTriangle factory fire\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eCornell University account of the fire\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003eApril 2, 1911\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003eSchneiderman stressed the need for a labor movement at a memorial gathering\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eSpeech held by the Kheel Center\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003eJune 30, 1911\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003eLaw establishing the New York State Factory Investigating Commission was enacted\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eCommission’s 1912 preliminary report\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003eFrom October 1911\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003ePublic hearings held in several New York State cities\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eNew York State Archives guide to commission records\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003eDecember 27, 1911\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003eNot-guilty verdict in the factory owners’ criminal trial\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eCornell University account of the trial\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003e1912\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003eLegislation on factory registration, automatic sprinklers and related rules\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eNew York State Archives guide to commission records\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003e1913\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003eReorganization of the Department of Labor and additional safety and health legislation\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eNew York State Archives guide to commission records\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Date\"\u003eFebruary 1915\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Event and change\"\u003eInvestigating commission submitted its final report\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Supporting record\"\u003eNew York State Archives guide to commission records\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#what-rose-schneiderman-demanded-at-the-memorial-gathering\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"what-rose-schneiderman-demanded-at-the-memorial-gathering\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhat Rose Schneiderman Demanded at the Memorial Gathering\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRose Schneiderman emphasized organized action by workers. She spoke at the Metropolitan Opera House on April 2, 1911. The Kheel Center holds the speech under the title “We Have Found You Wanting.” It first appeared in \u003cem\u003eThe Survey\u003c/em\u003e on April 8, 1911.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cblockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe only way they can save themselves is by a strong working-class movement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRose Schneiderman, “We Have Found You Wanting,” copy held by Cornell University’s Kheel Center\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/blockquote\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe speech argues that charity for bereaved families alone would not change working conditions. It also points to pressure from public authorities against workers’ protests. It ends by proposing a movement organized by workers themselves as the solution. These points appear in the \u003ca href=\"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/testimonials/ootss_RoseSchneiderman.html\"\u003espeech published by the Kheel Center\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTreating this speech as a demand for a particular piece of equipment would narrow its meaning. Its central claim is that workers must be the agents of improving their conditions. In the reforms that followed, union activity and demands for legislation developed together.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#how-the-factory-investigating-commission-turned-demands-into-evidence\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"how-the-factory-investigating-commission-turned-demands-into-evidence\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHow the Factory Investigating Commission Turned Demands Into Evidence\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe New York State Factory Investigating Commission combined site inspections with hearings. The law establishing it was enacted on \u003cstrong\u003eJune 30, 1911\u003c/strong\u003e. The commission had the authority to require witnesses to appear and documents to be produced. Its legal basis was Chapter 561 of the New York State laws of 1911.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eState legislators Robert Wagner and Alfred Smith led the commission. Frances Perkins also took part in the investigation and site visits. These connections helped move the findings onto the legislative agenda. Their roles are explained in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/mono-regsafepart07\"\u003eU.S. Department of Labor’s history of the commission\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe commission did not limit itself to the causes of the fire at one factory. It also investigated ventilation, sanitation and occupational diseases. It examined whether existing laws were being enforced. The scope of the investigation is set out in the \u003ca href=\"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/reports/LegislatureOfNYS.html\"\u003e1912 preliminary report\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eInvestigative method\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eEvidence gathered\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eRole in considering legislation\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Investigative method\"\u003eSite inspections\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Evidence gathered\"\u003eConditions of buildings, equipment and sanitation\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Role in considering legislation\"\u003eIdentified hazards repeated across factories\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Investigative method\"\u003ePublic hearings\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Evidence gathered\"\u003eTestimony from workers, employers, officials and others\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Role in considering legislation\"\u003eAdded firsthand experience and explanations to the official record\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Investigative method\"\u003eQuestionnaires and written submissions\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Evidence gathered\"\u003eProposals from experts, labor groups and others\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Role in considering legislation\"\u003eHelped assess improvements and problems with regulations\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Investigative method\"\u003eReview of existing laws\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Evidence gathered\"\u003eRegulations and their enforcement\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Role in considering legislation\"\u003eHelped determine the need for new rules and administrative changes\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHearings were held in Buffalo, Rochester and other places as well as New York City. They provided a way to put workers’ experiences into the public record. The methods of investigation are described in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.archives.nysed.gov/node/361137\"\u003eNew York State Archives guide to the commission’s records\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#what-changed-in-safety-and-health-laws-in-1912-and-1913\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"what-changed-in-safety-and-health-laws-in-1912-and-1913\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhat Changed in Safety and Health Laws in 1912 and 1913?\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe revisions addressed both safety equipment rules and the administrative bodies that would enforce them. In 1912, provisions concerning factory registration and automatic sprinklers became law. The Department of Labor was reorganized in 1913. Restrictions on women’s night work were also included in the legislation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eArea\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eProblem raised by the investigation\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eDirection of reform\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Area\"\u003eFire prevention and evacuation\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Problem raised by the investigation\"\u003eToo few exits and inadequate escape facilities\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Direction of reform\"\u003eStronger fire safety rules, including sprinkler requirements\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Area\"\u003eWorker health\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Problem raised by the investigation\"\u003eInadequate ventilation, washing facilities and toilets\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Direction of reform\"\u003eImproved sanitation and health protections\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Area\"\u003eOversight\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Problem raised by the investigation\"\u003eLimits of existing labor laws and supervisory bodies\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Direction of reform\"\u003eFactory registration and reorganization of the Department of Labor\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Area\"\u003eWorking hours\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Problem raised by the investigation\"\u003eNight work by women and other concerns\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Direction of reform\"\u003eProtective rules, including restrictions on night work\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe commission also recommended more stairs and exits, alarm systems and other measures. Not every recommendation became law on the same day or to the same extent. The \u003ca href=\"https://www.archives.nysed.gov/node/361137\"\u003eNew York State Archives guide\u003c/a\u003e distinguishes what was adopted in each year.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNew York City pursued reforms separately from state legislation. In October 1911, the city moved to establish a Bureau of Fire Prevention. The measure was intended to reduce confusion among agencies over inspections and enforcement. This course of events is described in \u003ca href=\"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/legacy/legislativeReform.html\"\u003eCornell University’s account of legislative reform\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#how-did-the-not-guilty-verdict-differ-from-safety-law-reform\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"how-did-the-not-guilty-verdict-differ-from-safety-law-reform\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eHow Did the Not-Guilty Verdict Differ From Safety Law Reform?\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe criminal trial was a process for deciding whether the owners were criminally responsible. Preventive legislation was work to establish safety standards that would apply to other factories. Both processes began with the same disaster, but they addressed different questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to Cornell University’s account of the trial, workers testified that they could not open the door. At trial, the question was whether the owners knew it was locked. The jury returned a not-guilty verdict on December 27, 1911. That verdict should not be read as a finding that the factory was safe.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eDistinction\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eCriminal trial\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eInvestigating commission and legislation\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Distinction\"\u003eCentral question\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Criminal trial\"\u003eCould the defendants be held criminally responsible?\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Investigating commission and legislation\"\u003eWhat risks should be reduced through regulation?\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Distinction\"\u003eSubject of review\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Criminal trial\"\u003eActions and knowledge in a specific case\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Investigating commission and legislation\"\u003eWorking conditions and regulation across workplaces\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Distinction\"\u003eOutcome\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Criminal trial\"\u003eNot-guilty verdict for the defendants\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Investigating commission and legislation\"\u003eChanges to safety and health rules and the oversight system\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA rule prohibiting locked doors already existed before the fire. Reform therefore also involved the enforcement of existing rules. The trial’s course is described in \u003ca href=\"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/story/investigationTrial.html\"\u003eCornell University’s account of the investigation and trial\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#records-and-interpretation\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"records-and-interpretation\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eRecords and Interpretation\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecords from the time and later accounts should be read with their different purposes in mind. Testimony records events as individuals experienced them. The commission’s reports presented findings and legislative recommendations. Historical accounts connect multiple records to explain the meaning of the changes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#what-the-records-confirm\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"what-the-records-confirm\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhat the Records Confirm\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Kheel Center’s introduction to the trial materials describes testimony from about 100 people. The full record has not survived intact, however. The complete text of Volume 2 is no longer available. Some of its contents have been supplemented by Leon Stein’s research notes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis state of preservation is noted in the \u003ca href=\"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/trialRecords/introduction.html\"\u003eKheel Center’s introduction to the trial records\u003c/a\u003e. The introduction itself should be distinguished from the original courtroom testimony. Anyone quoting an individual’s words directly should check that testimony separately.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#an-interpretation-shared-by-historical-accounts\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"an-interpretation-shared-by-historical-accounts\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eAn Interpretation Shared by Historical Accounts\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCornell University and the U.S. Department of Labor describe the fire as a turning point for reform. They also place it in the context of the existing labor movement and Progressive Era reform. It would therefore be difficult to say that one disaster created the whole of labor law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#limits-to-what-can-be-confirmed\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"limits-to-what-can-be-confirmed\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eLimits to What Can Be Confirmed\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTestimony about a locked door is distinct from proof of what the owners knew. The not-guilty verdict does not reject all the testimony about the door. Nor should a later historical account be presented as though it were the court’s ruling at the time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegislative outcomes alone cannot measure how much actual risk fell. Records of legal changes show how the system changed. Assessing its effects after implementation would require additional inspection, enforcement and accident data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#why-some-records-give-the-death-toll-as-145-and-others-as-146\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"why-some-records-give-the-death-toll-as-145-and-others-as-146\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhy Some Records Give the Death Toll as 145 and Others as 146\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article uses 146, the figure given in current accounts by Cornell University and public institutions. The text of the 1912 preliminary report, however, gives 145. The difference is a reason to distinguish the figure in the original document from the figure used in later accounts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"overflow-x-auto\"\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eRecord\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eDeath toll given\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth\u003eHow this article treats it\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Record\"\u003ePage 13 of the commission’s 1912 preliminary report\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Death toll given\"\u003e145\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"How this article treats it\"\u003eIdentified as the figure in the contemporary document\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Record\"\u003eCornell University account of the fire\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Death toll given\"\u003e146\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"How this article treats it\"\u003eUsed as the fire’s death toll\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Record\"\u003eLibrary of Congress historical guide\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"Death toll given\"\u003e146\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd data-label=\"How this article treats it\"\u003eCross-check for the figure in current accounts\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe excerpt from that report alone cannot establish how the difference arose. Silently changing 145 when quoting the original would alter the record. Conversely, using only 145 in an account of the event would conflict with current guides. Both the \u003ca href=\"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/reports/LegislatureOfNYS.html\"\u003e1912 report\u003c/a\u003e and the \u003ca href=\"https://guides.loc.gov/this-month-in-business-history/march/triangle-shirtwaist-factory-fire\"\u003eLibrary of Congress guide\u003c/a\u003e need to be checked.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#the-results-of-reform-and-their-meaning-today\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"the-results-of-reform-and-their-meaning-today\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eThe Results of Reform and Their Meaning Today\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne result of this case was that workers’ experiences became subjects of investigation and legal enforcement. Hazards were treated as public problems to be compared across workplaces. Reform extended beyond equipment standards to the bodies responsible for oversight.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEven after the revisions, there were political efforts to weaken the rules. The U.S. Department of Labor’s account records opposition from employers’ associations. In 1915, supporters of the reforms held a rally to defend the laws. Maintaining the system remained necessary after the legislation passed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eToday, this case is used to compare the conditions under which industrial safety systems work. Its significance lies in three connections:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe connection between workers raising concerns and their testimony entering the official record.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe connection between site investigations and specific preventive rules.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe connection between passing laws and continuing oversight and enforcement.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#frequently-asked-questions\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"frequently-asked-questions\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eFrequently Asked Questions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#did-the-fire-create-american-labor-law-for-the-first-time\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"did-the-fire-create-american-labor-law-for-the-first-time\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eDid the Fire Create American Labor Law for the First Time?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eState and local governments had labor safety rules before the fire. The Triangle fire exposed the limits of the existing system. New York State subsequently expanded and reorganized its rules and oversight system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#did-schneiderman-call-for-sprinklers\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"did-schneiderman-call-for-sprinklers\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eDid Schneiderman Call for Sprinklers?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe central point of the memorial speech examined here is the need for a strong labor movement. The quoted sentence does not call for sprinklers. Equipment recommendations should be distinguished from the speech and placed in the commission’s investigation and legislative process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#did-the-factory-investigating-commission-investigate-only-the-fire\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"did-the-factory-investigating-commission-investigate-only-the-fire\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eDid the Factory Investigating Commission Investigate Only the Fire?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe investigation expanded to sanitation, occupational diseases, working hours and other matters. It also examined enforcement of existing laws. The commission later investigated wage issues as well.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#why-did-the-law-change-if-the-factory-owners-were-found-not-guilty\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"why-did-the-law-change-if-the-factory-owners-were-found-not-guilty\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eWhy Did the Law Change if the Factory Owners Were Found Not Guilty?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe criminal trial and preventive legislation addressed different questions. The not-guilty verdict was not a reason to leave risks at other factories unaddressed. The investigating commission developed measures that could apply across workplaces.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\n\u003ca href=\"#did-the-legal-changes-eliminate-every-risk\" class=\"anchor\" id=\"did-the-legal-changes-eliminate-every-risk\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003eDid the Legal Changes Eliminate Every Risk?\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe records of legal changes alone cannot establish that outcome. Maintaining and enforcing the rules remained necessary. Their actual effect on safety must be assessed using records from after implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n","tags":["Labor Market","Working hours","Industrial safety","Labor movement"],"faqs":[{"question":"When did the Triangle factory fire occur?","answer":"It occurred on March 25, 1911, in Manhattan, New York. Cornell University and the Library of Congress put the death toll at 146."},{"question":"Were U.S. labor laws first enacted because of the fire?","answer":"Workplace safety regulations existed before the fire. The incident prompted New York State to expand and overhaul its existing regulations and oversight system."},{"question":"What did Rose Schneiderman call for at the memorial gathering?","answer":"In her speech on April 2, 1911, she emphasized organized action by workers. She also criticized the idea that charity alone could change working conditions."},{"question":"How did the New York State Factory Investigating Commission conduct its investigation?","answer":"It used site inspections, public hearings, surveys, and written submissions. It also had the authority to require witnesses to appear and documents to be submitted."},{"question":"What legal changes were made in 1912 and 1913?","answer":"In 1912, regulations covering factory registration and automatic sprinklers, among other things, were adopted. In 1913, legislation reorganized the Department of Labor and introduced additional safety and health regulations."},{"question":"Does the factory owners' acquittal mean there was nothing wrong with the doors?","answer":"The not-guilty verdict cannot be taken as proof that the factory was safe. The issue at trial was whether the owners knew the door was locked."},{"question":"Why does a report from the time list the death toll as 145?","answer":"The 1912 preliminary report lists 145 deaths. Current accounts from Cornell University and public agencies give the toll as 146. The excerpt from that report alone cannot establish the reason for the discrepancy."},{"question":"Did the legal changes make all factories safe?","answer":"The fact that laws were passed does not, by itself, show that all risks were eliminated. Assessing their actual effects requires inspection, enforcement, and accident records from after the laws took effect."},{"question":"Where can I read the Factory Investigating Commission's reports?","answer":"You can read an excerpt from the preliminary report at Cornell University's Kheel Center. The Historical Society of the New York Courts explains how to access the second, third, and fourth reports for public viewing."}],"sources":[{"url":"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/trialRecords/introduction.html","title":"Cornell University's Kheel Center, Introduction of the Trial Transcripts","type":"source"},{"url":"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/testimonials/ootss_RoseSchneiderman.html","title":"Cornell University's Kheel Center, Rose Schneiderman: We Have Found You Wanting","type":"source"},{"url":"https://www.archives.nysed.gov/node/361137","title":"New York State Archives, Factory Investigating Commission","type":"source"},{"url":"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/primary/reports/LegislatureOfNYS.html","title":"New York State Factory Investigating Commission, Preliminary Report, 1912, Volume 1, pp. 13~20","type":"source"},{"url":"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/legacy/legislativeReform.html","title":"Cornell University's Kheel Center, Legislative Reform at State and Local Level","type":"source"},{"url":"https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/mono-regsafepart07","title":"U.S. Department of Labor, The New York Factory Investigating Commission","type":"source"},{"url":"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/story/fire.html","title":"Cornell University's Kheel Center, Fire!","type":"source"},{"url":"https://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/story/investigationTrial.html","title":"Cornell University's Kheel Center, Investigation \u0026 Trial","type":"source"},{"url":"https://www.nps.gov/places/triangle-shirtwaist-factory-brown-building.htm","title":"U.S. National Park Service, Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (Brown Building)","type":"source"},{"url":"https://guides.loc.gov/this-month-in-business-history/march/triangle-shirtwaist-factory-fire","title":"U.S. Library of Congress, The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire","type":"source"},{"url":"https://history.nycourts.gov/garfinkel_resources/factory-commission-reports/","title":"Historical Society of the New York Courts, Reports of the Factory Investigating Commission","type":"source"}],"images":[{"id":1977,"url":"https://injoys.com/rails/active_storage/blobs/proxy/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6MzA0MTksInB1ciI6ImJsb2JfaWQifX0=--8291ae8591501a98e214196329c146f2342dd0ec/ai-18338f5f.webp","is_representative":false,"generation_method":"ai_semi","license":"ai_generated","mime_type":"image/webp","width":1536,"height":1024,"translations":{"ko":{"alt":"재봉틀과 흰 천이 빼곡한 작업장에서 노동자들이 일하고, 세 남성이 닫힌 문 쪽으로 걸어간다.","caption":"뉴욕주공장조사위원회의 현장 조사는 1912~1913년 안전·보건법 개정의 근거가 됐다.","description":null},"en":{"alt":"Workers sew amid crowded tables of white fabric as three men walk toward a closed door.","caption":"The New York State Factory Investigating Commission's site visits helped ground the 1912–1913 safety and health reforms.","description":null},"ja":{"alt":"白い布が積まれた作業場で労働者がミシンを使い、3人の男性が閉じた扉へ向かう。","caption":"ニューヨーク州工場調査委員会の現地調査は、1912～1913年の安全・衛生法改正の根拠となった。","description":null},"es":{"alt":"Trabajadoras cosen entre mesas llenas de tela blanca mientras tres hombres avanzan hacia una puerta cerrada.","caption":"Las inspecciones de la comisión investigadora de fábricas de Nueva York fundamentaron las reformas de seguridad y salud de 1912–1913.","description":null},"id":{"alt":"Para pekerja menjahit di antara meja penuh kain putih, sementara tiga pria berjalan menuju pintu tertutup.","caption":"Penyelidikan lapangan komisi pabrik Negara Bagian New York menjadi dasar reformasi keselamatan dan kesehatan pada 1912–1913.","description":null},"pt":{"alt":"Trabalhadoras costuram entre mesas cheias de tecido branco enquanto três homens caminham até uma porta fechada.","caption":"As visitas da comissão de investigação das fábricas de Nova York embasaram as reformas de segurança e saúde de 1912–1913.","description":null},"zh-hant":{"alt":"工人在堆滿白布的桌間操作縫紉機，三名男子走向一扇關閉的門。","caption":"紐約州工廠調查委員會的實地調查，成為1912至1913年安全與衛生法規修訂的依據。","description":null},"de":{"alt":"Arbeiterinnen nähen zwischen Tischen voller weißem Stoff, während drei Männer auf eine geschlossene Tür zugehen.","caption":"Die Ortsbesichtigungen der New Yorker Fabrikuntersuchungskommission bildeten eine Grundlage für die Sicherheits- und Gesundheitsreformen von 1912 bis 1913.","description":null}}},{"id":1978,"url":"https://injoys.com/rails/active_storage/blobs/proxy/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsiZGF0YSI6MzA0MjUsInB1ciI6ImJsb2JfaWQifX0=--b3dec4d249b67040e9f261bd400a9ad8b5e2ea3a/ai-d0fb97ff.webp","is_representative":false,"generation_method":"ai_semi","license":"ai_generated","mime_type":"image/webp","width":1536,"height":1024,"translations":{"ko":{"alt":"큰 창이 있는 회의장에서 노동자들이 기다리고, 앞쪽의 위원들은 긴 탁자에 앉아 서류를 살핀다.","caption":"뉴욕주공장조사위원회의 공개 청문회는 노동조건을 기록하는 과정이었다.","description":null},"en":{"alt":"Workers wait in a tall-windowed hall as officials review papers at a long table.","caption":"Public hearings helped the New York State Factory Investigating Commission document working conditions.","description":null},"ja":{"alt":"高い窓のある会場で労働者たちが待ち、奥の長机で委員たちが書類を確認している。","caption":"ニューヨーク州工場調査委員会は公開聴聞会を通じて労働条件を記録した。","description":null},"es":{"alt":"Trabajadores esperan en una sala de altos ventanales mientras funcionarios revisan papeles en una mesa larga.","caption":"Las audiencias públicas permitieron a la comisión investigadora documentar las condiciones laborales.","description":null},"id":{"alt":"Para pekerja menunggu di aula berjendela tinggi sementara para pejabat memeriksa berkas di meja panjang.","caption":"Dengar pendapat terbuka membantu komisi penyelidikan pabrik mencatat kondisi kerja.","description":null},"pt":{"alt":"Trabalhadores aguardam num salão de janelas altas enquanto autoridades examinam papéis numa mesa comprida.","caption":"As audiências públicas ajudaram a comissão investigadora a documentar as condições de trabalho.","description":null},"zh-hant":{"alt":"工人在高窗廳堂內等候，遠處的委員坐在長桌旁查閱文件。","caption":"紐約州工廠調查委員會透過公開聽證記錄勞動條件。","description":null},"de":{"alt":"Arbeiter warten in einem Saal mit hohen Fenstern, während Beamte an einem langen Tisch Unterlagen prüfen.","caption":"Öffentliche Anhörungen halfen der Untersuchungskommission, die Arbeitsbedingungen zu dokumentieren.","description":null}}}],"published_at":"2026-10-20T05:26:25+09:00","updated_at":"2026-10-20T05:26:25+09:00","license":"cc_by","translation_status":"reviewed","available_locales":["ko","en","ja","es"],"data_locales":["ko","en","ja","es","id","pt","zh-hant","de"],"url":"https://injoys.com/en/articles/triangle-factory-fire-new-york-safety-law-reform"}