The 1970 Postal Strike and Labor's Decline
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
i COLLECTIVE BICKERING: THE 1970 POSTAL STRIKE AND LABOR’S DECLINE ____________________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Fullerton ____________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Public History ____________________________________ By Matthew Franklin Thesis Committee Approval: Alison Varzally, Department of History, Chair Volker Janssen, Department of History Carrie Lane, Department of American Studies Spring, 2018 ABSTRACT The 1970 Postal Strike, beyond being the largest wildcat strike in U.S. history, served as an important milestone in the decline of the American labor movement in the second half of the twentieth century. The events of the strike, the rank-and-file’s reasons behind the demonstration, and their leadership’s response revealed the major flaws and problems that kept unions from maintaining their power after the 1960s: members’ feelings of disrespect from union leaders, said leaders’ unwillingness to adapt to the changing times, and a president and congress that focused less on mutual cooperation and more on “trimming the fat” of government spending. Although postal employees succeeded in gaining pay raises and numerous benefits, the lack of meaningful reform and union democratization failed to correct many of the major issues that caused the strike in the first place. The decades following the postal strike show a series of events that confirm 1970 as the start of a national trend toward a more austere political and economic atmosphere—and a sign that American labor as a single entity could not adapt to this change. This failure to adapt allowed anti-union elements within the government to turn public opinion against organized labor and further speed its decline. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... ii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 2. LACK OF RESPECT TO THE RANK-AND-FILE ............................................ 16 3. UNWILLINGNESS TO ADAPT ......................................................................... 22 4. EVOLVING OPPOSITION IN BUSINESS AND POLITICS ............................ 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 59 iii 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In March of 1970, postal workers in New York City made a very important decision. For decades, the postal service refused to address the growing volume of mail, the deteriorating workplaces, and the stagnant pay of its employees. Despite the need for drastic improvement, both management and union leadership failed to address and act on these problems, thus leaving the rank-and-file members of the postal unions no choice but to implore Congress for better pay and conditions on their own in an act referred to by them as “Collective Begging.”1 With conditions continuing to worsen and the government ignoring their pleas, the members of the Manhattan National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) branch 36 voted to go on a “wildcat strike”—a strike without the authorization or planning of the union leadership. This demonstration was not only illegal but unprecedented in the 178 year history of the United States Postal Office Department. The act of one local branch tapped into a well of discontent and anger so deep, the scope of the strike surprised even the members who started it. In the span of barely a week, the strike spread from coast to coast, involving over two hundred thousand postal workers and effectively crippled the infrastructure of major U.S. hubs like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. Leaders of postal unions including the NALC, the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), and the National Rural Letter Carriers Association 1 Harry Reasoner, CBS New Special Report, March 22, 1970. 2 (NRLCA), failed to predict the anger of the workers, and fought desperately to regain control of the situation. From March 18th to its end on March 25th, workers refused to listen to the orders of either union leadership or federal government officials, even President Nixon himself. The nationwide demonstration, to this day the biggest wildcat strike in U.S. history, saw the reformation of the Post Office Department into a corporate entity and the merger of five different postal unions into the American Postal Workers Union (APWU). The leadership’s realization they could not contain the strike changed their goal from ending it immediately to placating its participants into submission. The striking postal employees received higher pay, amnesty regarding the strike, and the right to directly negotiate with congress. However, many criticized their union leadership for acquiescing too quickly and failing to address long-standing issues regarding union democratization. Despite the unexpected and uncontrolled nature of the strike, President Nixon successfully maneuvered for a less costly alternative to the inefficient Post Office Department—something that benefitted the government more than its postal workers. The strike represents a failure of the American labor movement, a time when the rhetoric of union leaders could not measure up to the reality of their broken promises. The year 1970 sits as a turning point not only for postal workers, but for the nation itself. In addition to uncertainties and divisions wrought by the war in Vietnam and the social movements of the 1960s, the advance of automation and globalization reduced manufacturing jobs that formed the backbone of American labor. In response, the government began a massive change in approach: rather than actively trying to nurture a “Great Society” as President Johnson described it, a more austere and conservative 3 federal government would encourage a more cut-throat and individualistic society in an effort to keep the American economy competitive. As a result, blue collar workers grew more and more unsure of their futures, and looked to the leaders of the nation—whether in labor, government, or American culture—to help them understand these changes and adapt. The leaders of the AFL-CIO and its associated unions largely failed in this responsibility. The disruption of the rank and file postal workers during the wildcat strike and the response of labor and government leaders proves this point by highlighting three major reasons for the decline of the greater American labor movement: First, the AFL- CIO’s lack of respect and understanding of the workers’ grievances toward their problems, both economic and social; Second, an overly cautious leadership that refused to sufficiently adapt to stagnation and changing circumstances; Third, the U.S. government’s change in approach from supporting and cooperating with labor to treating them as the enemy. While the issues of distrust and resentment in the rank-and-file, complacency in the union leadership, and oppositional factions in the federal government existed in some part in the preceding decades, they became increasingly prevalent and obvious during the rapid changes of the mid-twentieth century. The decline of labor that accelerated in the 1960s stemmed in part from union leadership’s missed realization: that the social fervor of the mid-twentieth century constituted the same unrest that fueled labor’s greatest victories during the Great Depression. By the 1970s, the economies of World War II combatants like Germany and Japan recovered to the point where they could directly compete with the U.S. on the global market. Likewise, Middle-Eastern nations like Iran grew more and more resistant to American pressure—as seen with the emergence of the 4 Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). As other nations began to assert their own influence back onto the world stage, the United States faced the reality of its own faltering hegemony. Fewer people lined up to purchase American products, and events like the 1973 Oil embargo signaled an end to the relative economic security of the preceding twenty five years—a security that encouraged and protected the unity of labor. With workers enjoying good pay and job security, many were unwilling to “rock the boat” when it came to reform or democratization of their unions. In the words of AFL- CIO president George Meany: “we now have a membership that’s got a great deal more to lose by a strike than they had when wages were low and they didn’t have the pension rights and insurance rights and all this sort of thing . they’ve got kids going to college.”2 Despite the progress of the labor movement and the new financial and political gains for its members, these benefits also hid a number of fundamental issues regarding American labor: a lack of respect towards its rank and file, The 1970s saw many Americans growing frustrated and doubtful by the nation’s perceived decline, and they needed reassurance that they could affect real and positive change in their country. Whereas labor previously spearheaded this movement in the 1930s and grew strong for it, the failure to recognize and capitalize on this sentiment forty years later arguably brought that period of strength to an end. The failure to predict and adapt to changing circumstances such as the Civil rights movements and economic globalization stemmed in a big way from the national leadership’s stubborn and overly-cautious attitude.3 2 George Meany, interview