CHAPTER X

THE TEST OF WILLS

The majority ofthe men oppose the fink hall and shop committee because they don't control it. Ifthe Union could control the plan, it would not oppose it as much as they do now, but they neverfeel secure without control.

-Dave Madison 1921 1

Frank Foisie's organizational ability was an important factor in making joint organization a reality on the Seattle waterfront in 1921. Dissension among ILA unions also con­ tributed. Although locals 38-12, 38-16, and 38-11 comprised "nearly all ofthe registered men" at the Employment Bureau, the unions could not find a way to make a united stand against "Foisie's fink hall.''2 On March 9, 1921, the ILA district office, together with the three longshore locals, asked the Central Labor Council to use its good offices to settle their dispute.3 The council's strategy committee proposed that the three longshore locals amalgamate .under one charter. Ifthis propositiondidnot meetwith unanimous approval, two charters should be issued, one for stevedores and the other for truck­ ers.4 Officers of the longshore locals presented the council's recommendations to their membership. On March 21, 1921, Secretary James Foley ofLocal 38-16 informed the council that the membership had tabled indefinitely the strategy committee's proposals. Foley added that his local "will have no further dealings with Local 38-12."s Blocked byLocal 38-16's intransigence, the laborcouncil urged Pacific Coast District ILA convention delegates to sedt Local 38-12 "In order that they may have the fullest possible freedom ofexpression and opportunity to present and defend their position on an equal basis with their opponents."6 The convention seated six Local 38-12 representatives, along with

167 mE TEST OF WIlLS A HISfORY OF SEATILE WATERFRONT WORKERS three from Local 38-16, and two from Local 38-11. After Seattle asquickly aspossible toinvestigate andreturn with an lengthy debate on the Seattle situation delegates approved a action plan. On July 16 the international convention voted resolution submittedbySydneyR. LinesofBellinghamLocal unanimously to revoke the charters of the three Seattle wa­ 12 38-25. Lines proposed that the convention wire "PresidentT. terfront unions. V. 0 'Connortocancelthe charters now held by Locals38-11, During the first week ofDecember 1921, newly-elected 12,and 16, andthatonechanerbe issuedcovering Ship,Dock ILA President Anthony J. Chlopek met with committees and Warehouse Work in the Pon of Seattle to one group of representing the three former locals and !LA district officers. workers composed of the present membership of the afore­ After hearing the testimony, Chlopek decided "That 38-11, mentioned locals.''7 O'Connorwired back, "Ifcancellation of 38-12 and 38-16 amalgamate underonecharter, giving equal chaners andissuanceofnewone is approvedofbyLocals and rights toevery membertoperformany work: that heiscapable District convention, International will do SO."I ofunder thejurisdictionofthe union, whether longshoring or After District President Joseph Taylor read O'Connor's trucking." Ifthe three locals did not amalgamate within thirty telegram to the convention, Local 38-12 delegates J. A. days, Chlopek said he "would recommend that a charter be Madsen and Thomas Mason moved to amend the Lines issued to the group who desire to be a part and parcel ofour resolution. Madsen and Mason sought to refer the Seattle International."13 problemtotheincomingdistrictexecutiveboard. Nels Nielson At the request of President Chlopek, the three expelled and Fred Carl of Local 38-11 amended the Madsen-Mason unions senthim writtenresponses tohisdecision. Local38-12 motion to read that the members of Local 38-12 who were repeated its offer to disband and form a new local embracing stevedores be taken into Local 38-16 and the dock truckers all waterfront workers.14 Former Local 38-11 declared that into Local 38-11.9 Tacoma Local 38-3 delegate Ed Kloss dockworkers and warehousemen in Local 38-12 should be in moved to amend the Carl-Nielson amendment to read "that Local 38-11.1S Local 38-16 stated again its willingness to the wholesubjectmatterrelativetothe controversyasaffecting absorb all members of Local 38-12 making their living ex­ Locals 38-11, 38-12, and 38-16 be submitted to President T. clusivelyatstevedoring.16 OnDecember27,DistrictPresident V. O'Connor with the request that he come to Seattle imme­ E. B. O'Grady reponed to Chlopek that shipowner pay lists diately to investigate this controversy and that his decision revealedonly a scoreofLocal 38-12 menactually workingon shallbefinal and binding."Afterinterminabledebate, Kloss's the Seattle waterfront. In contrast, Locals 38-11 and 38-16 amendmentcarried bya roll call vote, thiny-five to nineteen.lo claimeda combined membership of529,all ofwhomworked On May 24, Local 38-12 unanimously adopted and for­ on the docks.17 warded to the Central Labor Council, and to the upcoming !LA President Chlopekrestored Local 38-12's charteron ILA convention, an offer"todisband this local, surrenderour April 25, 1922, thereby ending twenty-three months of es­ chaner and join with our fellow workers of locals 38-11 and trangement between the Seattle local and the international. 38-16in the organization ofa new local, which shall embrace The new charter gave the union sole jurisdiction over 11 all the union men ofthe waterfront."11 At the beginning ofthe longshoring and trucking in Seattle. The rechartered local !LA convention, the executive council recommended to the started with one majoremployer, the PonofSeattle, a far cry convention that the chartersoflocals 38-11, 38-12, and 38-16 from the days when 3,500 members controlled all of the be revoked. The council also directed O'Connor to go to waterfront work:. Men who believed in cooperating with the

168 169 A mSTORY OF SEATTLE WATERFRONT WORKERS TIlE TEST OF WIlLS international and district officials emerged as leaders of the independent Stevedores andDockWorkers' Union ofSeattle. Riggers and Stevedores during the 1920s. George Bartlett, The men voted to continue participation in the employers' Ernest "Limo" Ellis, Walter Freer, Ed Morton, and J. C. jointorganization. Atthe May 19 sessionoftheJointExecutive Peterson servedas presidents, secretaries,and trustees. 19 Local Committee, K. J. Middleton decried efforts to disrupt the 38-12 strictly adhered to the rotary dispatch principle, but present "close cooperation" between waterfront employees there were two lists, one for stevedores and another for and employers. DavidMadison responded thatthe Stevedores truckers.2O and Dock Workers' Union was created to fight for joint On the day that Local 38-12 received its new aAcharter, organization. "The men feel the needofan organization to see the union calledon Locals 38-11 and 38-16 to reunite into one that present plans are retained should the employers introduce union. The expelled unions did not respond. 21 A week after plans to do away with them.''26 receiving their new charter, Local 38-12 sent three delegates A majority ofSan Pedro longshoremen voted on May 18 to the Central Labor Council. The longshore representatives to withdraw from the !LA and form the Federation ofMarine announced tothe councilthat they were mounting an organizing Transport Workers ofthe Pacific Coast (MTW). The Seattle campaign to drive the fink hall out ofexistence.22 The timing Stevedores and Docks Workers Union formally joined the appeared to be excellent. During March 1922, employers on federation on July 19 as Local 2. The membership elected the Joint Organization'sExecutive Committee had brusqueIy George Kennedy president ofLocal 2. The MTW executive turned down a request by committeemen for a pay raise. Still, boarddesignatedDavidMadisondistrictsecretary andnorthem Local 38-12 grew slowly. By the end ofthe year the union had organizer for the new union. 27 only 295 members.23 Joint Organization On Trial The Marine Transport Workers' Federation During April 1922 Portland and Anacortes employers At the 1922 district convention, aAPresident Anthony J. declared for the open shop and· established fink halls. Chlopek reported he had not rechartered Seattle locals 11 and Scabherders arrived in Seattle and Tacoma to recruit long­ 16 because the two Seattle unions had endorsed a San Pedro shoremen to replace striking !LA men. On May 28, W. C. Local 38-18 referendum that advocated the districtdrop outof Dawson persuaded two of the Employment Bureau gangs the ILA and fonn an independent transport workers' federa­ assigned to his company to go to strike-bound Anacortes to tion.24 After Chlopek spoke, David Madison retorted that in load the Mexican. Anacortes longshoremen told Dawson's June and July of 1921 all three Seattle longshore locals had men that the strike was a matter ofeconomic survival. Both talked with seamen about creating a coastwide transport Seattle gangs quit except for three men. At the June 14 workers' union alongOne BigUnion lines. Madison concluded executive committee meeting a two-hour debate ensued over with a threat, "If we can get recognition honestly [from the the Mexican incident. Afterwards the Joint Executive Com­ ILA] we will accept it. Ifnot then we will do the best we can mittee voted unanimously that "no men will be dispatched to under the circumstances."25 outside ports where longshore laborstrikeconditionsprevail." Considering themselves"outlawedfrom the ILA," fonner A second motion to suspend the three Seattle longshoremen locals 38-11 and 38-16 amalgamated on May 9, 1922, into the who worked the Mexican failed by a vote offour to four. 28

170 171 A lllSTORY OF SEATILE WATERFRONT WORKERS TIlE TEST OF WIllS Beginning inFebruary 1923 the JointExecutive Commit­ tee took up its annual consideration of wages, hours, and working conditions. W. C. Dawson expressed the hope that committeemen would agree to eliminate "unnecessary com­ modity penalties" sothat Seattle would be in a more favorable position than San Francisco. The employees said nothing. A noticeable shift occurred in employer comments. Instead of praising the cooperation of Employment Bureau longshore­ men as they hadfor two years, the bosses criticized hall gangs for deliberately slowing down on the joband disregarding the orders of gang foremen. Workers discharged by foremen should not be allowed to return to the hall and go out on the nextjob. W. C. Dawsonwanted to fine the malingerers. Foisie said the men took too much advantage of the security given them by joint organization. The industrial manager recom­ mended to the executive committee that the authority of the hatch foremen be restored, but no action was taken.29 StiffLeg Crane at Smith Cove ofJloading Pullman. Port ofSeattle. AtthenextmeetingoftheExecutiveCommittee,employers stated that wages did not need to be raised. Foisie presented Three weekslatertheJointExecutiveCommitteeresumed figures to prove the bosses contention. The monthly average deliberations on the wage scale. Madison suggested five­ for a stevedore's pay had risen from $58.14 in January 1921 cents-an-hourincreaseon handling lumberasone way tomeet to$167.91 inDecember 1922. Truckers hadrisen from $39.94 the increased cost of living. Middleton replied that the only to $108.01. Foisie reckoned,"The average monthly earnings recourse was arbitration. Trucker Lee Carls asked the em­ in Seattle are probably higher than any port in this country.''30 ployers if they stood behind their constitutional pledge that Insucceeding sessions employers noted the change in the cost wages in Seattle would be equal to other Pacific Coast ports. ofliving was barelyperceptible and conditions in the industry Employers assented. Carls then inquired ifemployers would did not pennit an increase. Speaking for the men, David agree to base wage increases on United States Department of Madison stated that living costs had gone up sharply. Fur­ Laborcost-of-living statistics. Speaking for employers, A. F. thermore, penalty pay and working rules in other ports had Hainesdeclaredtheywould abide bythe federalcost-of-living become more favorable to the men than Seattle's. Ifa wage index. Employers and committeemen renewed the existing agreement could not be reached in the executive committee, wage scale and appointed a cost-of-living committee.32 Madison demanded the matter go to arbitration. Royal Mail Employers reported at the May 1923 Joint Executive Line Manager Keith G. Fisken asked, and the committee Committeethatmenapplyingforwork, aswell as several who agreed, to defer a decision on the wage issue until the next were alreadyregistered, hadcomplainedofbeing coercedinto meeting.31 joining the Marine Transport Workers' Federation. Union men on the committee denied that MTWcompelledanyone to

172 173 A IDSTORY OF SEAITLE WATERFRONT WORKERS lHE TEST OF WillS join. Besides, no onecouldjointhe union unless they had ahall While Seattle employers and longshore committeemen registration number. Representatives of the men had no ob­ argued over recognizing MTW Local 2, the Vancouver ILA jectionto posting anotice that anyone caughtpressuring aman local invited Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia ILA to join MTW would be told to leave the Joint Organization.33 and MTW locals to discuss wages on June 18, 1923. Seattle At the August Joint Executive Committee meeting, Madi­ Riggers and Stevedoressent three representatives to Vancouver son presented a proposed agreement between Marine Trans­ with instructions to vote to stay with the ILA, and to approve port Workers' Local 2 and the Waterfront Employers' As­ any move to raise wages orbetter working conditions. 36 At the sociation ofSeattle. Madison pointed out that MTW recogni­ conferenceDavidMadison told ILA organizerJack Bjorklund tion would insure that ships moved on schedule. At any time that MTW would support an ILA demandfor wage increases.37 another union could organize a considerable number of the During July, Bellingham hosted another ILA-MTW confer­ men and call a strike. Although Marine Transport Workers ence. Again, discussion centeredon getting awage increase.38 might not be in sympathy with that strike, the moment On September 1, ILA and MTW officersestablished an adhoc strikebreakers appeared on the waterfront, MTW men would NorthwestLongshoremen'sCouncil for Oregon, Washington, refuse to cross picket lines. Moreover, MTW men wanted and British Columbia. The council sent to all employers a their own hall. The attempts at general meetings in the proposed wage scale. The men asked for the restoration ofthe dispatch hall had been unsuccessful. Finally, Madison gave 9O-eents-an-hourforlongshoremen and 80cents for truckers. 39 credit toemployers for living up to theirpledge that union men The Waterfront Employers' Association of Seattle replied, would not be discriminated against in any way, shape, or "As we have no working relations with your organizations, fonn.34 these demands cannot be considered."4O W. C. Dawson repliedfor the employers. Dawson thought One month after the Seattle employers refused to consider a majority of the men had no serious fault to find with Joint the pay proposal ofthe Northwest Longshoremen's Council, Organization. He doubted whether the men as a whole wanted George Clark placed before the Joint Executive Committee a a union agreement Dawson then asked for Madison's resig­ wage scale similar to the one presented by the Northwest nation "becausehe hadnot been working on the waterfront for Longshoremen's Council. Across the country, Clark stated, some time past. According to the bylaws, he eliminated there had been a general wage increase. Seattle waterfront himselffrom the jointorganization." Madison replied that he workers should be able to share in the prosperity. Theemployers had intended to resign, but the men prevailed upon him not to refused to grant the wage increase, stating that the cost of do so. Longshore committeeman Carls told the employers that living had not changed. Clark responded that this left long­ their position was notjustified. ''The men have the same right shoremen in a static position. When 80cents an hour had been to berepresented by apaidofficial as the employers." Kennedy adopted in 1921, it was atemporary expedient. Nowemployers and Winkler supported Carls position, pointing to Foisie as a considered the 1921 wage scale base pay. At the end of the paid employee. Madison asked if a man who took a paid debate, employers and committeemen voted to arbitrate. position with the union lost.his registration. The committee Employers elected Joseph Weber of Griffiths & Sprague agreed unanimously that taking a paid union job did not Stevedoring and committeemen selected George Kennedy to preclude a man's right to return to the waterfront. Madison decide the wage issue.41 Kennedy and Weber did not have to tendered his resignation from the committee.35 renderadecision. DuringDecember 1923, first San Francisco,

174 175 A HISTORY OF SEATILE WATERFRONT WORKERS TIm TEST OF WIUS and then all other Pacific Coast employers, posted notices of Longshore Boardin 1934 that Dispatcher Ringenberg played 90 cents straight time and $1.35 overtime for longshoremen. favorites. Certain gangs got the best jobs.46 Art Whitehead Truckerwages increased to 80cents for eight hours and $1.20 reported to the NLB that after Local 38-16 was broken up, overtime.42 ''The employers started chiseling on us, started taking differ­ At the Joint Executive Committee's January 1924 meet­ ent things and reversing everything."47TomWadum believed ing, Employment Bureau staffinsisted that an employer-staff the two managers deliberately used the power to dispatch to subcommittee decide who and how many men should be break down the morale of the men in order to destroy their registered.EmployerssupportedFoisie andRingenberg, stating spirit.4I that the executive committee should make and review policy, notdictatewho should be registered. The bosses stated that the Richard J. Haverty real issue was whether or not committeemen were going to v. continue their efforts to establish a closed shop. "Go ahead International Stevedoring Company with your union affiliations," Middleton testily told the committeemen, "butdo not make the mistake oftrying to force Of all the committees formed at the beginning of Joint the employers to deal with the union or with union instructed OrganizationinFebruary 1921, the employer-employee safety committees." Speaking for the men, George Kennedy replied committee achieved the least success. During 1921 Joseph thattheydidnotwanttotakecontrolofthe stevedorebusinesses, Weber tried to get this committee to adopt an accident pre­ but they did want something to say about who they worked ventionprogram, butnooneelse seemedinterested.49 Theneed with. Ifthe JointEmployment Committee was not in charge of for a joint safety campaign was obvious. The Washington the actual hiring then there should be no employment com­ State Industrial Insurance Commission reported that from mittee. Dawson reiterated that the joint committees would 1913 through 1923 at least 7 percent ofthe Seattle longshore make policy and management would carry them out.43 work force was on the partially orpermanently disabled list.so Losing their voice in hiring and in negotiating pay raises Ifinjured orkilled at work, unti1191310ngshoremen and their frustrated the Employment Bureau men, but there seemed to families had no recourse except to settle with the steamship be nothing they could do about the situation. To Local 38-12 and stevedore companies or sue in Admiralty Court. Largely President Walter Freer there was no difference between the at the urging of Washington State Industrial Insurance scabhallof1917andFoisie'sfink hall. Theindustrialmanager's Commissioner Hamilton Higday, accident compensation for contribution "was to so modify the system in Seattle as to longshoremen began in 1913.s1 Threeyears later,FederalJudge makeitappear that the men themselves were whole-heartedly Jeremiah Neterer ruled longshoremen ineligible for state in cooperation with it." Joint Organization existed on paper, compensation ifthey were injured aboard a ship. Waterfront real control ofjobs and wages remained solely in the hands of workers injured on the dock remained under state compen­ the employers.44 To other longshoremen who worked out of sation.S2 the Spring Street hall, the problem was Mer! Ringenberg. "If One particular accident thrust Seattle into national youdidsomething hedidn'tlike," HectorGouletrecalled, "he prominence. At 9:00 a.m. on May 21,1923, Richard Haverty would sit you down for a week ortwo. He'd humiliate you."4S was stowing I,800-pound bales of wool in the hold of the Walking boss William H. Meakin reported to the National Andrea Luckenbach with five other stevedores ofTen Gang.

176 177 A HISTORY OF SEAITLE WATERFRONT WORKERS TIlE TEST OF W1lJ.S Haveny stoopedoverto upend a bale in the square ofthehatch navigable waters as the plaintiffwas. whatever it might mean when another bale came down without warning. The bale hit in laws of a different kind. Judgment affirmed."ss Haveny in the small of the back. "On all previous loads the At the same time the Haverty case was churning through hatch tender sang out but not on the one that hit me:' Haverty the courts. the InternationalLongshoremen's Association and later testified. He spent the next three weeks in the hospital. the American Association for Labor Legislation renewed Another eight and one-half months passed before he could efforts to remedy the lack of accident compensation for return to work in the hold.s3 American port workers hurt aboard ships. In 1917 and 1922 Haverty sued International Stevedoring in King County the two organizations had succeeded in getting Congress to Superior Court for medical expenses and lost earnings. The enact compensation legislation for harbor workers. but the company claimed Haverty had been injured through the United States Supreme Court had declared both laws uncon­ negligence of a fellow worker for which International Ste­ stitutional. Efforts to generate support for a third attempt vedoring should not be held responsible. The defendant's proceeded slowly.S6 In designing the new bill. AALL Secre­ lawyers, Stephen V. Carey and Roy E. Bingham. cited the tary John B. Andrews wrote Frank Foisieon August 12. 1925. eighty-three-year-oldfellow-servant doctrine to support their that ILA officials and several employers supported the con­ case. Carey and Bingham also pointedout that the 1920Jones cept of a federal workmen's compensation law covering all Act. which established employers' liability for seamen. did interstate employees and admiralty workers not under state not apply to stevedores while working aboard ship. Judge compensation. Andrews noted that federal legislation being Calvin S. Hallagreed with Haverty'slawyer. Mark Litchman: drafted by AALL included the Washington State compensa-: "Toapplythe fellow servantdoctrine of1841 ascontendedfor tion funding conceptthateliminatedprivateinsurancecompa­ by defendant. to a recent vocation. longshoring, where the nies.Y7 Foisie responded that the Waterfront Employers' As­ facts are undisputed that it occurred through the failure to sociation ofSeattle "unhesitatingly expressed themselves in performa non-delegableduty. would be to make the 'worldgo favor ofthe exclusive state funding principle." Foisie thought backward' as to longshoremen. while the 'world has been it impossible to get a bill through Congress that covered going forward' for all employees on land:'S4 longshoremen. seamen.andrailroadworkers. He suggestedto Judge HallawardedHaverty $3.500 for medical expenses Andrews that the nextfederal compensation bill be limited to and his lost earnings. International Stevedoring appealed the longshoremen.SI decision to the state SupremeCourt which sustained the lower On March 4. 1927. both houses of Congress passed the court. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the case Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. during October 1926. The federal court skirted the fellow Congress directed the United States Employees' Compensa­ servant and the non-delegable issues. The court addressed the tion Commission (BCC) to administer the act. With the aid of question. Does the Jones Act apply to longshoremen when the shipping industry and the ILA. ECC developed a fixed they workaboard ship? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote payment schedule for injuries as well as for occupational the court's unanimous decision on October 18. 1926: "Weare diseases contracted while working on docks. The Act set the ofthe opinion that a wider scope should be given to the words maximum weekly benefit at $25.00 and the minimum $8.00. of the [Jones] act. and that in this statute "seamen" is to be Benefit for total disability or death could not exceed $7,500. taken to include stevedores employed in maritime work on Coverage would be compulsory for all waterfront workers.

178 179 A IllSTORY OF SEATILE WATERFRONT WORKERS 11lE TEST OF WIllS Employers had to pay all medical costs. Shipowners and quated cargo handling methods, and 5 percent by equipment s.tev~ori~g companies could either self-insure or carry a failure. The most common cause of accidents. proved to be hablhty Insurance policy. Finally. the Act commissioned "Struck by Swinging Objects." For the first ten months of ECC to investigate and recommend to Congress and employ­ 1924 the accident severity rate on Puget Sound amounted to ers specific safety measures.59 28.2 days lost for every 1.000 hours worked.61 The safety program did have an effect on the longshore accident rate over the next ten years. From the inception of Joint Organization in 1921 through 1924. eleven Seattle longshoremen were killed at work. From 1925 through 1930 only four fatalities occurred.62 At the same time tonnage handled by the men increased from 4,063,001 tons in 1921 to 7.879.801 in 1925 and 8.361.579 in 1930.63 While figures for the number ofnon-fatal accidents in Seattle are not available. statewide the numberof"severe"waterfrontaccidentsdeclined from 373 in 1922 to 235 in 1925 and 165 in 1933.64 Over the men's objections. Arkills worked through the John BjorJcJund. Joseph Weber, Joint Executive Committee a requirement that the men have Washington State Historical Courtesy ofJoseph Weber Society medical examinations before receiving aregistration number. The men believed Arkills planned to eventually eliminate Development ofa Seattle Longshore Safety Policy physically handicapped workers already on the waterfront. The safety engineer did not try to get rid of the disabled.6S While Congress and the courts slowly groundoutanational Instead. AIkills turned to stress testing waterfront equipment. compensation plan for waterfront workers. Joseph Weber Using the facilities ofthe University ofWashington, oneofthe urgedPuget Soundemployers to hire a safety director. During major experiments determined the breaking point of eighty­ July 1924 the Waterfront Employers' Association ofSeattle five miniature booms.66 hired Murvin E. Arkills as safety engineer. Arkills established The Joint Executive Committee assigned ArkiUs and the joint employer-employee safety committees that developed safety committee responsibility for implementing the 1927 rules for inclusion in standard practice handbooks. Arkills federal Longshoremen's andHarborWorkers' Compensation soon recognized that the key to a safer waterfront lay in the Act. There were complaints by the men of the slowness of hands ofhatch tenders. To get these men to think more about emergency room doctors at the hospitals. Committeeman accident prevention, the safety engineer required hatch ten­ HarryHooligan, who had been recently injured, stated that his ders to make out monthly accident reports. 60 doctor was capable, the hospital treatment fme. and the In his firs~ annual report Arkills announced that 50percent compensation paid promptly. During the first six months of of cargo handling accidents at Puget Sound ports happened the Act, the average compensation paid an injured Puget because of the carelessness of the men, 45 percent by anti- Sound longshoremen amounted to $20.22 a week. 67 In October 1928, Frank C. Gregory, safety engineerfor the

180 181