Copyright I L L Ton Lawii Far Her
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright ill ton Lawii Far her, Jr. 1?59 I CHANGING ATTI1UDBB OP THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR TOWARD BUSINESS AID OOVSUBBMT 1929-1933 DBSBtTATIOS Rnmitod In Partial JhlflUaant of tho Raqulraaanta for tha Dacr«o Dootor of fhiloaephy In tha fraduats flehool of tha Ohio Stata UnivsrsHy By MILTON I S I S FARBBRf J R ., B. A ., M. A. Tha Ohio Stata Unlraraity 1959 Jppro*ad by Dapartaant of History ACKNMUSDGSMSra In tha preparation of thle dissertation* the author has incurred manor debts* to Hr. Jeorge Hsany for permission to use the Minutes of the AFL Executive Council; to Mrs. Eloise Ciles and her staff at the AFL-CIO librarj; to Hr. laroel Pittat of tha State Historical Society of VUsoonsin; to the staff of the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress; to Mrs. Wanda Rife, Miss Jans Catliff and Miss Hazel Johnson of the Ohio State University library; and to frofessor Alma Hsrbst of the Economics Department of the Ohio State University for her many kindnesses. The award of a William (keen Fellowship by the Ohio State University made possible the completion of this dissertation, lastly , the author acknowledges with gratitude the p ersisten t In terest and c r itic a l insight of Professor Foster Rhea Dulles which proved Invaluable throughout the preparation of the work. i i TAB IS OF CONTENTS Chapter Pag* I . GROANIZED LABOR ON THE EVE OF TUB DEPRESSION........................... 1 H . IKS SLA OF PERSUASION AND THE IEQACI OF QONPTOS.......................... 33 III* LABOR AND THE CRASH* 1929-30 * . • . ..................... 63 IV. LABOR AND THE DEEPENING DEPRESSION* 19 3 1 ........................................89 V. IAADERSKIP OF IKE TTCOOtB..................................................................... 112 VI. LABOR TURNS TO G0V91NKENT................................................................Ub5 VII. THE INJUNCTION AND THE JUDICIAHT......................................... 166 V III. UNKMPLOIKENT INSURANCE............................................................................ 197 IX. DECISION* THE 1932 CONVENTION............................................................ 2i«3 X. THE IMPACT OF THE DEPRESSION............................................................263 t BIBI20GRAFHX.................................................................................................... .... AUTOBIOOUPHT....................................................................................................... • 295 1 1 1 CHAPTER I ORGANIZ'D LABOR ON THE EVE OF THE DEPRESSION looking bock in 1939 at the early years of his presidency of the Auer icon Federation of labor, William Green saw nuch of which he f e lt he could be proud* He remembered the years between 1925 and 1929 as a tine when enployers were beginning to realize that the American Federation of labor was an agency through which workers could make their greatest contribution to industry. He had been in constant demand to explain labor's point of view to chaabers of commerce* businessmen's clubs* church groups and university gatherings. "During this period of prosperity*" he recalled, "there developed a number of plans for unlon-management cooperation....lbis was an outgrowth of collective bargaining* and* I felt* the hipest point it had attained." Poreover, labor's patient explanations, its activities at the bargain* ing table, and the enployars* fear of unionization had brought wage earners a greater share of the national wealth. Directly or indirectly* the AFL had given the worker "a place in the nation's increasing prosperity."* Few students of the labor movement would now agree with President Green's nostalgic reflections, flimarically* the Federation had been in a decline since 1920 and by the end of the decade had lo st nearly one- *William Green, labor and Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939), pp. 1 2 third of its strength. American trade union membership aa a whole had fallen from slightly over five million to lees than three and one-half m illion, and I f i nereaslng population is taken into account, the de cline was even more severe. Measured against potential union member ship, the percentage of organized workers had dropped from 16.8 in 1920 to 10.2 in 1930.2 This decline had not been uniform throughout the decade. Trade unionism had undergone intense expansion during the war when the government to a degree protected organization. Between 1915 and 1920, membership almost doubled. In the next few years, however, it fell precipitously and most of the gains were wiped out. After 1923, union strength fell slowly —a few thousand nearly every year— up until the depression when the rapid liquidation began again. An important aspect of both the wartime increase and the subse quent, sudden decline was the restricted area of its inpact. The bulk of the gains had come in a few industries —building construction* the matals-machinery-shipbullding group, transportation and coBmunications, and clothing. These industries accounted for 1,870,000 new unionists 2Actual union membership is studied in Ieo Holman, The Ebb and Flow in frade Unionism (Hew York* National Bureau of Economic Research, 1936}. *heal" membership, i . e . , actual meiberrhip as a percentage of the civilian labor force is discussed in Irving Bernstein, "The Qrowth of American Unions," The American joonoaic Review, XUV (June, 195fc), 301-10. A further modification, upon i^iloii tfae figures above are based, considers membership as a percentage of the union potential of the civilian lax>r foroe, i.e., the foroe minus farmers, managers, professional men, etc. Benjamin Solomon, "Dimensions of Union Growth," Industrial and labor Relations Review, IX (July, 1956), 51*li-6l. 3 between 1915 and 1920, In the next three years* unions in these sane fie ld s lo st 1*128*000 members* In metals* machinery* and shipbuilding the loss amounted to 95 per oent of the prior gain; in clothing* 50 per cent. For the metal trades* thero scarcely existed a core about which to build in the future.^ Throughout the 1920's* union strength in these and other industries continued to decline. Tremendous losses were suffered between 1923 and 1929 in mining* quarrying* and oil* The United Mine Worker* alone* dropped from a 1920 peak of over 1(00*000 members to perhaps less than 150*000 in 1930.^ Almost as great were the continuing downward trends in olothing* metals* machinery* and shipbuilding while chemicals and allied industries* food* liquor and tobaoco, and transportation and conmunications hardly fared better. On the other hand* unionization increased considerably among publds service and theatrical enployees and in the paper and printing indus- tries. The greatest gains* however* were in the building trades unions* This la tte r group added 130*000 members between 1923 and 1929.^ The result of these developments was a further narrowing of the ^Metals* machinery and shipbuilding* for example* gained 63l(*000 between 1915 and 1920 and lo st 601*000 between 1920 and 1923* Wblman* kjhld.* p. U] Saul Alinsky* John L. lewis (New lorkt G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1939)* p* 61. “ ^Vfolman* Ebb and Flow* p. bO. u already restricted scope of trade unionism. By 1930, 70 per cent of unior. bership lay in five groups of occupations. Transportation accounted for about one-fourth of tha total due largely to the railroad unions which were sheltered somewhat by the government from the more virulent forms of in d u strial warfare. The building trades which had profited from a construction boom accounted for another 25 per cent* An additional 20 per cent lay in the highly skilled printing trades, in the sheltered public service field, and in the theater industry. There was virtually no unionism in iron and steel, automobiles, food packing, rubber, chemicals, or electrical products.^ Even by November 1933, when unionism was increasing, the National Industrial Conference Board re ported that only about seven per cent of the workers in manufacturing were unionized.^ For these reasons, the American labor movement was considerably less well off than some statistics seemed to indicate. The numbers of man loot were not as important as the industries from which the unions had been driven. This narrowing of the base of representation was especially marked within the American Federation of Labor. According to lewis Lorwin, the building trades in 193? (which was admittedly a bad year) provided over one-third of the to ta l AFL membership, as ^l*o VTolman and Oistav Peck, "Labor Groups in the Social S tructure,11 in President's Research Committee on Recent Social Trends, Recent Social Trends in the Onlted States (New York* McGraw-Hill SoolcSb., T93TT7 it, Wl. Cited Iiereafter as Recent Social Trends. ?Cited in Wolman, Ebb and Flow, p. 133* 5 Q compared with 20.5 per cent in 1520. Lacking even a foothold in the groat maaa-production plants and weakened In the mines and the mills, the AFL became little more than a spotty representation of a few selected occupations. It continued to exist, largely on the defensive, in a score of narrowly restricted trades and aroas.^ The reasons for this deterioration of union strength during the twenties are extremely complex. Certainly no single factor was respon sib le. Moreover, in assessing the causes of the decline, the whole question of inevitability is involved. Would different trade-union policies have offset to any appreciable degree the enployer offensive? Were there overwhelming and irre s is tib le economic forces a t work which would have made a more m ilitant unionism