Podcast Sejarah

Kongres Organisasi Industri: CIO

Kongres Organisasi Industri: CIO

Salah satu konflik besar dalam gerakan buruh terjadi antara Serikat Pekerja dan serikat pekerja industri. Ketika Federasi Buruh Amerika menunjukkan keengganan untuk mengorganisir pekerja tidak terampil, John L. Lewis membentuk Komite Organisasi Industri dalam AFL pada tahun 1935. Pada tahun berikutnya, tidak mau mengakomodasi tuntutan CIO, AFL mengusir anggota CIO , yang mengorganisir diri ke dalam Kongres Organisasi Industri dua tahun kemudian.Lewis membentuk Komite Organisasi Industri ketika dia menyadari bahwa setiap keuntungan yang dimenangkan untuk penambang bisa hilang jika dia tidak mengatur "tambang tawanan" seperti yang dipegang oleh produsen baja ` United States Steel Company, yang mempekerjakan 170.000 pekerja. Itu memperburuk perpecahan di dalam AFL, yang menolak menerima serikat pekerja baru karena mereka memandang rendah pekerja industri dan serikat pekerja industri sebagai pekerja tidak terampil.Melihat tidak ada masa depan untuk serikat industri dalam kerangka AFL, Lewis menarik mereka dan menciptakan Kongres Organisasi Industri pada tahun 1938, di mana ia menjadi presiden pertama. Pada konvensi pendiri, yang dilakukan di Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, dari 14-18 November 1938, Lewis mengakui upaya Samuel Gompers dalam mengorganisir tenaga kerja pada tahap awal ekonomi Amerika, tetapi menunjukkan kegagalan AFL untuk mengorganisir massa. pekerja di perusahaan industri besar. Pada saat yang sama, kurang dari setahun sebelum pecahnya perang di Eropa, Lewis mengingatkan para pemimpin keuangan dan bisnis Amerika bahwa ketika, seperti yang tampak saat itu, Amerika akan ditarik ke dalam dunia konflik, itu akan menjadi tenaga kerja, bukan manajemen dan bukan pemilik, yang akan melestarikan demokrasi dengan layanan mereka. Pada tahun 1940, dalam upaya untuk menggunakan prestise untuk mempengaruhi hasil presiden, Lewis bersumpah untuk mengundurkan diri sebagai presiden CIO jika Franklin Roosevelt kembali -terpilih. Walter Reuther dari United Auto Workers menjadi presiden terakhir CIO, sebelum merger bersejarahnya dengan AFL. Keanggotaan di CIO meningkat dari empat juta pada tahun 1938 menjadi enam juta pada tahun 1945. Meskipun hampir 650.000 anggota pernah tergabung dalam serikat pekerja tersebut, banyak yang bergabung kembali dengan CIO dalam serikat pekerja yang telah didirikan sebagai alternatif dari serikat pekerja yang dianggap didominasi komunis. Perbedaan antara serikat pekerja murni AFL, dan serikat pekerja industri CIO, kabur selama bertahun-tahun. Serikat Pekerja Garmen Wanita Internasional (ILGWU) adalah salah satu serikat CIO asli, tetapi segera kembali ke AFL. Jadi pada tahun 1952, tahun ketika presiden AFL dan CIO meninggal, AFL memiliki hampir setengah keanggotaannya di serikat industri. ekonomi.


Kongres Organisasi Industri: CIO - Sejarah

Kongres Organisasi Industri

Konfrontasi Pembantaian Hari Peringatan
Presiden serikat, termasuk John L. Lewis dari United Mine Workers, mendirikan Komite untuk Organisasi Industri pada November 1935. Muak dengan penolakan Federasi Buruh Amerika (AFL) untuk mengorganisir pekerja pabrik yang tidak terampil dan setengah terampil, Lewis dan sekutunya menyediakan uang dan kerangka organisasi untuk mobilisasi dan serikat pekerja mereka. Komite meresmikan pemutusan hubungan dengan AFL ketika mengadakan konvensi pertamanya pada tahun 1938, mengubah namanya menjadi Kongres Organisasi Industri (CIO). Pada tahun 1955, CIO bergabung dengan AFL untuk membentuk AFL-CIO.

Butuh banyak pertempuran—di jalur piket dan lantai toko, di pengadilan dan di lingkungan sekitar—untuk membangun CIO. Penyelenggara menghadapi majikan yang canggih dan keras kepala, dengan sejarah panjang kampanye anti serikat pekerja yang sering berubah menjadi kekerasan. Namun, hal-hal lain yang kondusif untuk pengorganisasian: Depresi pengangguran, yang merusak loyalitas karyawan & apos kepada perusahaan mereka Gereja Katolik Roma yang sangat prolaborator kelas pekerja yang telah mempertahankan institusinya sendiri dan rasa dirinya sendiri dan kehadiran banyak radikal, seringkali Komunis , yang telah menghabiskan bertahun-tahun mengorganisir di parit. Di antara peristiwa-peristiwa penting dari periode 1935 hingga 1942 yang menandai fase awal pengorganisasian dan pelembagaan CIO adalah Pembantaian Hari Peringatan, ketika petugas polisi Chicago menyerang pekerja Republic Steel yang mogok pada 30 Mei 1937, unjuk rasa massal Pekerja Packinghouse di Coliseum pada 16 Juli 1939, ketika Uskup Bernard Sheil dan John L. Lewis menyuarakan persetujuan mereka terhadap serikat pekerja industri dan, pada awal 1941, Pekerja Peralatan Pertanian&apos berhasil melakukan pemogokan terhadap International Harvester.

Pekerja baja, yang merupakan 100.000 hingga 125.000 anggota CIO di wilayah Chicago, rata-rata, sepanjang sebagian besar sejarahnya, adalah intinya. Pekerja pengepakan—rata-rata sekitar 40.000 anggota—dan pekerja peralatan pertanian—sekitar 25.000—datang berikutnya. Anggota CIO lainnya termasuk pekerja mobil, pekerja pakaian, pekerja eceran dan grosir, dan pekerja listrik.

Joseph Germano, direktur Steelworkers District 31 dari 1940 hingga pensiun pada 1973, memimpin sayap liberal anti-Komunis CIO. Seorang diktator virtual di distriknya, yang terbesar di Steelworkers, Germano sangat antiradikal, tetapi juga pro- hak-hak sipil dan, bila perlu, seorang anggota serikat buruh yang militan. Herbert March, dari United Packinghouse Workers, Grant Oakes, dari Farm Equipment Workers, dan Hilliard Ellis, dari United Automobile Workers, memimpin sayap “Komunis”. Masalah memuncak pada konvensi CIO Illinois 1947, yang menampilkan serangan premanisme berulang-ulang terhadap “Komunis,” ketika pertemuan yang didominasi Steelworker membersihkan diri dari kiri. Pada tahun-tahun berikutnya, Steelworkers memainkan peran utama dalam kemitraan CIO&aposs dengan Partai Demokrat.

Di belakang yang diberikan oleh tahun-tahun deindustrialisasi dan serangan anti-serikat, keberhasilan CIO (peningkatan martabat di tempat kerja, kemajuan dalam hak-hak sipil, upah yang lebih tinggi, dan peningkatan tunjangan), cukup mengesankan pada saat itu, tampaknya hampir luar biasa.


1935 - Kongres Organisasi Industri

Kerusuhan perburuhan menyertai kebangkitan perusahaan skala besar, dengan konflik antara pekerja terampil dan manajer sebagai aspek utama. Tangan pabrik yang tidak terampil dan setengah terampil tidak surut ke latar belakang. Seperti rekan-rekan mereka di era perkembangan industri yang lebih awal, mereka terlibat dalam protes yang tidak berfokus pada kontrol produksi tetapi lebih pada kondisi menyedihkan di mana mereka bekerja.

Tahun 1920-an menyaksikan serangan manajerial dan yudisial terhadap serikat pekerja, tetapi tangan-tangan tekstil masih di kota-kota perusahaan di Piedmont selatan mempertaruhkan pekerjaan mereka dengan mogok di tahun-tahun terakhir dekade itu. Antara tahun 1880 dan 1930, para operator pabrik menolak untuk tinggal diam, tetapi hanya sedikit dari upaya mereka yang menghasilkan organisasi buruh permanen atau kontrak serikat pekerja. Unionisme produksi massal pertama-tama akan menjadi ciri abadi manufaktur Amerika pada 1930-an dan 1940-an.

John L. Lewis, seorang tokoh terkemuka dalam sejarah buruh Amerika, memberikan banyak kontribusi untuk urusan ekonomi dan politik nasional. Antara tahun 1934 dan 1960-an, pusat perencanaan dan tempat pertemuan untuk beberapa inisiatif paling berani Lewis adalah markas besar serikat pekerja di Washington, DC. Pada tahun 1934, kantor pusat terletak di Tower Building di sudut 14th dan K Streets di Franklin Square. Pada tahun 1936, UMW pindah ke University Club Building di 900 15th Street NW, yang kemudian dikenal sebagai United Mine Workers’ Building. Markas besar telah dipindahkan ke Washington dari Indianapolis, menandai semakin jauhnya jarak antara para pemimpin puncak organisasi itu dan orang-orang berpangkat tinggi. Dengan semua penampilan gedung perkantoran perkotaan konvensional, struktur menyampaikan konservatisme budaya.

Dengan pemilihan gedung ini, Lewis, yang mengenakan setelan jas tiga potong dan mengendarai Cadillac, memproyeksikan citra terhormat serikat pekerja bisnis. Dalam hal ini, presiden UMW mempersonifikasikan kecenderungan dalam kepemimpinan nasional serikat pekerja Amerika dan dalam kelas pekerja secara keseluruhan pada pertengahan abad ke-20.

Di segmen industri bitumen, Lewis menjalankan strategi serikat pekerja pasar yang bertujuan tidak hanya untuk menaikkan harga tenaga kerja tetapi, yang paling luar biasa, merasionalisasikan industri itu sendiri. Desakannya pada tingkat tenaga kerja yang tinggi dan seragam mendorong operator batu bara lunak untuk mempercepat mekanisasi. Pengabdiannya yang tunggal pada upah tinggi, produksi padat modal mendorong organisasi pengusaha di bidang bitumen yang kacau balau. Dengan suksesi perjanjian induk antara UMW dan operator batu bara lunak yang dimulai pada tahun 1933, visi Lewis tentang industri yang stabil, modern, dan berserikat secara bertahap tercapai. Bahwa kesepakatan ini menuntut hilangnya ratusan ribu pekerjaan dan penurunan tajam dalam kondisi kerja, bagi Lewis yang keras kepala, adalah harga kemajuan.

Tapi konservatif ini bisa menjadi organisator militan. Presiden UMW menjadi semakin jengkel dengan keengganan Federasi Buruh Amerika (AFL) untuk mengatur industri produksi massal. Penolakan konvensi AFL 1935 untuk mengambil tindakan tegas untuk merekrut tenaga kerja industri yang kurang terampil memicu prakarsa bersejarah. Pada tanggal 9 November 1935, Lewis bertemu di kantor pusat UMW dengan sekelompok kecil pemimpin buruh pembangkang lainnya untuk mendirikan Komite Organisasi Industri. Setelah tiga tahun hingar bingar pengorganisasian dan pertengkaran dengan penjaga lama, komite ini memisahkan diri menjadi Kongres Organisasi Industri (CIO), dengan keanggotaan agregat lebih dari tiga juta. Baik arsitek dan pembangun utama CIO, John L. Lewis terpilih sebagai presiden pertamanya. Industri dasar yang menghindari serikat pekerja selama beberapa dekade sebagian besar diorganisir pada akhir Perang Dunia II. Pekerja kerah biru akhirnya memiliki suara kolektif dan kekuatan penyeimbang melawan perusahaan raksasa yang telah mendikte syarat dan ketentuan kerja mereka.

Para pembangkang menuntut agar asosiasi arus utama mulai mengorganisir jutaan tangan pabrik di industri produksi massal nasional yang tetap berada di luar lipatan serikat pekerja AFL. Ketika para pemberontak digulingkan dari federasi pada tahun 1935, Lewis dan sekutunya meluncurkan sejumlah kampanye serikat di bawah panji CIO baru mereka.

Mereka pertama kali memilih industri baja dan tidak kurang dari raksasa di lapangan, US Steel. Tanpa perlawanan, para eksekutif perusahaan setuju pada awal 1937 untuk mengakui serikat baja CIO dan menandatangani kontrak yang memajukan upah dan tunjangan yang menguntungkan bagi karyawan Baja AS. Selanjutnya adalah General Motors. Di sini terjadi konfrontasi dramatis, menampilkan pemogokan duduk yang terkenal pada musim dingin 1937, yang paling kritis terjadi di pabrik perakitan mobil Chevrolet di Flint, Michigan. Para pekerja tersandung sakelar, menutup ban berjalan, dan menduduki gedung. Menghadapi front persatuan, para pejabat GM pada bulan Maret setuju untuk mengakui serikat Pekerja Mobil Bersatu (UAW) CIO.

Didorong oleh kemenangan awal ini, penyelenggara CIO menargetkan produsen baja dan mobil lainnya serta industri karet, elektronik, pengepakan daging, dan penerbangan lainnya. Mereka menghadapi oposisi yang keras. Perusahaan yang lebih kecil dan kurang hak dari US Steel di industri baja memegang garis melawan CIO. Akan ada sejumlah konfrontasi kekerasan dalam mengorganisir drive, seperti yang disebut Pembantaian Hari Peringatan pada tahun 1937, ketika polisi di Chicago membubarkan demonstrasi pekerja Perusahaan Baja Republik. Di industri otomotif, Chrysler mengikuti GM dalam mengakui UAW, tetapi Henry Ford yang keras menolak berurusan dengan serikat pekerja sampai tahun 1941.

Perjuangan dengan Ford akan mencakup pertempuran sengit di luar pabrik raksasa River Rouge di Detroit yang dibangun oleh Ford pada akhir 1920-an. Serangan oleh penjaga Ford terhadap pemimpin UAW Walter Reuther di jalan layang di pabrik mendapat perhatian nasional. Namun, CIO tetap bertahan dan pada pertengahan Perang Dunia II, federasi baru telah mempengaruhi serikat pekerja yang lebih besar dari industri produksi massal nasional.

Keberhasilan luar biasa CIO sering dikaitkan dengan perlindungan federal yang diberikan gerakan serikat pekerja dalam Undang-Undang Hubungan Perburuhan Nasional yang disahkan pada tahun 1935. Bantuan pemerintah federal untuk tenaga kerja memainkan peran penting, tetapi ada faktor penting lainnya.

Perubahan sikap beberapa eksekutif perusahaan adalah salah satu pertimbangan. Dihadapkan dengan masa bisnis yang sulit selama tahun 1930-an, mereka memilih untuk tidak kehilangan keuntungan pasar dengan pemogokan yang melumpuhkan. Berurusan secara total di pabrik dengan CIO membawa stabilitas ke lantai toko, dan manajer perusahaan sangat menyadari bahwa, dengan politisi yang bersimpati pada tenaga kerja di kantor nasional dan lokal, mereka tidak dapat mengandalkan bantuan pemerintah dalam memadamkan kerusuhan.

Sekelompok muda pemimpin buruh, yang ingin melepaskan diri dari pengaruh para tetua konservatif mereka di AFL, melihat peluang untuk membuat sejarah dan meningkatkan karir mereka sendiri dalam dorongan pengorganisasian baru. Di bawah mereka ada kader pengorganisasi lantai toko yang terampil, banyak dari mereka Sosialis dan Komunis, yang keyakinan politiknya mendorong dedikasi dan kerja mereka. Bersama mereka ada jutaan pekerja produksi massal yang dididik dan dipolitisasi oleh Depresi Hebat. Banyak dari mereka adalah imigran generasi kedua dan ketiga yang, tidak seperti orang tua dan kakek-nenek mereka, tidak pernah memiliki gagasan untuk kembali ke tanah air mereka. Mereka berada di AS untuk tinggal, warga negara yang ingin keluarga mereka menikmati standar hidup Amerika yang layak, termasuk tunjangan tambahan yang hilang selama depresi (manfaat yang dijamin oleh kontrak serikat daripada disediakan melalui kebaikan majikan mereka).

Para pekerja ini mampu mengatasi perpecahan etnis dan ras yang telah menghalangi kampanye serikat pekerja di masa lalu. Selama dan setelah Perang Dunia I, orang Afrika-Amerika keluar dari Selatan untuk mencari pekerjaan di industri utara, seringkali karena gerbang pabrik tertutup bagi mereka, atau posisi yang disediakan oleh majikan yang dengan sengaja membagi tenaga kerja mereka secara rasial untuk mencegah serikat pekerja. Penggerak serikat pekerja CIO berhasil pada tahun 1930-an dan 1940-an. Penyelenggara radikal dan pemimpin CIO mengorganisir pekerja kulit hitam untuk mengatasi kecurigaan mereka terhadap gerakan buruh yang sebelumnya menghalangi kemajuan mereka, dan pekerja kulit putih menerima persatuan, meskipun dengan enggan dalam banyak hal.

Dari tahun 1935 hingga 1945, buruh terorganisir menikmati pertumbuhan terbesarnya dalam sejarah Amerika. Keanggotaan di antara pekerja non-pertanian meningkat dari 3,6 menjadi 14,3 juta (38,5 persen pekerja non-pertanian) secara nasional. Keanggotaan serikat pekerja tumbuh di Selatan, tetapi sampai tahun 1960-an proporsi pekerja terorganisir di wilayah tersebut adalah setengah dari jumlah yang tersisa di negara itu. Tekstil, industri manufaktur terbesar dan terpenting di kawasan ini, sebagian besar tetap non-serikat. Hasil keseluruhan adalah kelemahan kritis di Selatan untuk tenaga kerja terorganisir, yang pada gilirannya memiliki implikasi signifikan bagi ekonomi nasional dan politik selatan.

Pada tahun 1940-an, Selatan muncul sebagai surga bagi industri yang mencari tenaga kerja berupah rendah, non-serikat, dan tidak terampil. Politisi Selatan, yang ingin memberikan pekerjaan yang dibutuhkan kepada masyarakat yang menderita akibat krisis pertanian yang berkelanjutan, menawarkan insentif pajak, subsidi, dan bentuk bantuan lain kepada perusahaan yang berlokasi pabrik di Selatan. Perang salib untuk pengembangan industri selatan, umumnya dikenal sebagai "penjualan Selatan", dimungkinkan sebagian besar karena pekerja selatan menunjukkan sedikit minat dalam pengorganisasian.

Untuk memahami keberhasilan CIO adalah dengan mengupas lapisan jawaban seperti itu. Namun, tidak ada yang terjamin. Serangan balik politik manajerial dan konservatif untuk keuntungan yang dibuat oleh CIO sebelum dan selama Perang Dunia II akan membawa undang-undang, khususnya Undang-Undang Taft-Hartley tahun 1947 yang mengekang dorongan dan kekuasaan buruh terorganisir. Pembersihan organisator radikal dengan Ketakutan Merah Perang Dingin pada akhir 1940-an dan 1950-an melemahkan energi lebih lanjut dari gerakan. Pertumbuhan birokrasi serikat pekerja dan menghilangkan konflik dari lantai toko dan ke ruang negosiasi dengan serikat pekerja dan pejabat manajemen, mediator pemerintah, agen federal, dan pengadilan meredam pemberontakan dan keterlibatan pekerja lokal. Stultifikasi dalam serikat pekerja industri akan terjadi selama tahun 1950-an.


Kelahiran CIO

Bill Roberts menjelaskan bagaimana kemunduran yang mendalam bagi gerakan buruh AS pada 1920-an hanyalah awal dari perjuangan serikat pekerja massal pada 1930-an.

KELAHIRAN Kongres Organisasi Industri (CIO) mengantarkan periode militansi buruh yang mengubah gerakan buruh Amerika.

Selama periode 10 tahun, antara tahun 1936 dan 1946, perjuangan pekerja AS termasuk yang paling dinamis di antara negara-negara industri maju.

Sifat eksplosif dari pertumbuhan aksi buruh ini dapat dilihat dari jumlah pemogokan. Antara 1923-32, ada 9.658 pemogokan yang melibatkan 3.952.000 pekerja. Antara 1936-45, ada 35.519 pemogokan yang melibatkan 15.856.000 pemogok.

Sebelum perubahan haluan yang dramatis ini, gerakan buruh AS mengalami penurunan. Tidak hanya serikat pekerja dari Federasi Buruh Amerika (AFL) kehilangan anggota pada tingkat 7.000 per minggu pada tahun 1931, tetapi upah pekerja juga menurun. Pemotongan upah rata-rata di bidang manufaktur adalah 9,4 persen pada tahun 1931.

Para pemimpin buruh AFL tidak memainkan peran yang berbeda selama periode Depresi daripada para pemimpin buruh saat ini. Di atas segalanya, mereka melihat tugas mereka sebagai salah satu meminimalkan efek kekalahan, tetapi tidak melakukan apa pun untuk mengubah arahnya.

Jadi, misalnya, John L. Lewis, Ketua Serikat Pekerja Tambang (UMW), berkeliling wilayah pertambangan menasihati pekerja untuk mengambil pemotongan dan tidak mogok.

Lewis adalah tipikal anggota serikat bisnis yang menjalankan serikatnya dengan tangan besi. Dalam tradisi mantan ketua AFL Samuel Gompers, dia tidak melakukan apa pun untuk mendidik anggotanya sehingga mereka dapat mewakili diri mereka sendiri dengan lebih baik di tempat kerja dia sangat anti-komunis dan mendukung Partai Republik.

Pada tahun 1922, pada akhir pemogokan yang berhasil, Lewis meninggalkan 100.000 pemogok yang tidak terorganisir di Pennsylvania dan West Virginia yang tidak tercakup dalam perjanjian yang ditandatangani oleh majikan.

Sikap ini membuat sektor-sektor besar industri tidak terorganisir dan sangat melumpuhkan UMW pada akhir tahun 1920-an. Pada tahun 1931, hanya ada 60.000 anggota yang tersisa di UMW yang dipotong dari 400.000 pada puncaknya pada tahun 1920.

Pada tahun 1933, Lewis terpaksa memindahkan persneling. Dalam bahaya kehilangan kekuasaannya, Lewis memutuskan strateginya untuk mencari undang-undang yang mendukung industri batu bara terlalu berlebihan, dan dengan demikian, dia bergabung dengan apa yang sekarang menjadi tuntutan dari para industrialis dan bankir untuk pendekatan yang lebih luas untuk memecahkan masalah kapitalisme AS- -intervensi pemerintah.

Pada tahun 1933, Lewis mempresentasikan rencananya untuk menghidupkan kembali kapitalisme AS kepada komite Senat. Termasuk dalam rencana itu adalah pengurangan hari kerja untuk membantu menyerap sebagian pengangguran, upah minimum dan di atas segalanya, hak untuk berorganisasi dan berunding bersama dengan majikan.

Ini adalah kontribusi boniness unionisme untuk National Recovery Act (NRA) dan dimasukkan di bawah Bagian 7(a).

MITOS yang berkembang di sekitar NRA memuji Presiden Franklin Delano Roosevelt dan Partai Demokrat sebagai sahabat buruh.

Faktanya, pekerja sudah memiliki hak hukum untuk berorganisasi di bawah Norris-LaGuardia Act tahun 1932, dan fakta bahwa serikat pekerja telah mengorganisir pekerja membuat bagian ini tidak lebih dari pekerjaan hubungan masyarakat.

Seperti yang diakui oleh Sekretaris Tenaga Kerja Roosevelt, Frances Perkins, "Ditulis secara umum, 7(a) adalah masalah dalam semantik. Itu adalah serangkaian kata yang cocok untuk para pemimpin buruh."

Lewis sendiri mengakui bahwa "Roosevelt tidak terlalu bersahabat dengan Bagian 7(a)." Namun demikian, slogan "Presiden Anda ingin Anda bergabung dengan serikat pekerja" digunakan oleh penyelenggara serikat pekerja di daerah tambang batu bara dan garmen dengan hasil yang dramatis.

Dua bulan setelah pengorganisasian UMW dimulai, 300.000 anggota baru mendaftar. Pekerja Garmen Wanita Internasional mendaftar 150.000 dan Pekerja Pakaian Gabungan 50.000.

Efek dari NRA adalah listrik. Meskipun dorongan utama dari undang-undang tersebut adalah untuk menyelamatkan kepentingan bisnis, bagi jutaan pekerja tampaknya lampu hijau telah menyala bagi mereka untuk bergabung di bawah naungan pemerintah.

Bahkan jika Bagian 7(a) membantu memacu organisasi beberapa pekerja, itu tidak dapat melindungi mereka dari pembalasan majikan. Majikan melakukan yang terbaik untuk melanggar 7(a).

Kadang-kadang hal ini memprovokasi pemogokan terlepas dari oposisi pemimpin serikat tetapi juga menyebabkan demoralisasi di antara para pekerja yang dihentikan karena upaya pengorganisasian mereka.

Pemogokan Umum San Francisco tahun 1934 adalah contoh terbaik tentang bagaimana para pekerja menanggapi majikan reaksioner yang bertekad menolak upah layak atau serikat pekerja pantai. Terlepas dari kebrutalan polisi besar-besaran dan kepemimpinan AFL yang enggan, gelombang solidaritas kelas pekerja secara efektif menempatkan kota di tangan para pekerja untuk waktu yang singkat.

Hal itu memungkinkan para pekerja lepas pantai untuk keluar dari perjuangan dengan kondisi, upah, dan serikat yang lebih baik yang diakui.

Di sisi lain, pekerja karet menemukan bahwa AFL tidak mampu menggunakan NRA untuk membantu mereka. Pada tahun 1934, 70.000 pekerja telah bergabung dengan serikat federal AFL (struktur yang dirancang untuk menyalurkan pekerja ke berbagai divisi kerajinan AFL setelah industri tertentu diorganisir).

Pembagian ini, tentu saja, berperan di tangan pengusaha dalam upaya mereka untuk tidak melakukan tawar-menawar dengan serikat pekerja.

SEPERTI pekerja industri LAIN, pekerja karet ingin serikat pekerja mengambil bos.

Pekerja di General Tire and Rubber menjadi tidak sabar dengan percepatan dan upah rendah. Mereka menyerukan pemogokan pada bulan Juni 1934 yang membuat pemimpin yang ditunjuk AFL, Coleman Claherty, sangat ketakutan.

Perusahaan menolak untuk mengakui serikat, dan, melalui segala macam manuver hukum, mereka menyabotase pemilihan yang akan memberikan pengakuan seluruh serikat industri. Alih-alih menyerukan pemogokan di seluruh industri - satu-satunya cara untuk memaksa perusahaan menawar - AFL membuat kesepakatan di Washington pada April 1935, sepenuhnya menyerah pada perusahaan.

Para pekerja karet benar-benar terdemoralisasi, dan keanggotaan serikat pekerja berhenti menjadi kurang dari 3.000 pada musim panas.

John L. Lewis, Presiden Industri Garmen Pria Sidney Hillman, dan Presiden Pekerja Garmen Wanita David Dubinsky adalah di antara para pemimpin serikat pekerja yang dikreditkan dengan menghidupkan kembali serikat pekerja AS.

Kontribusi mereka datang lebih dari pertimbangan pragmatis daripada dari perspektif teoritis atau visioner.

Dengan posisi mereka sendiri yang terancam oleh krisis ekonomi, mereka melihat jalan ke depan melalui pengorganisasian pekerja di seluruh industri.

Seperti yang dicatat Daniel Guérin dalam karyanya 100 Tahun Buruh di AS:

para inovator ini memiliki satu argumen yang mendukung mereka: kemajuan teknis. Sementara produktivitas industri telah meningkat kurang dari 10 persen antara 1899 dan 1914, itu meningkat 7 persen setiap tahun 1920-1930.

Di semua industri dasar, yang semi terampil menggantikan yang terampil, dan dalam banyak kasus didominasi oleh pekerja tidak terampil. Delapan puluh lima persen pekerja Ford dapat dilatih untuk melakukan pekerjaan mereka dalam waktu kurang dari dua minggu.

Struktur pengorganisasian pekerja dengan keahlian adalah belenggu pada gerakan serikat, dan Lewis dan orang lain yang mendukungnya menyadari hal ini.

Pertempuran antara "industrialis" dan "perajin" di dalam AFL pecah di konvensi 1934 di San Francisco. Para pembela orde lama mengakui pendirian serikat-serikat industri di bidang otomotif, semen dan aluminium, tetapi mereka terus bersikeras pada keunggulan serikat-serikat buruh.

Daniel Tobin dari Teamsters mengulangi penghinaan lama Gompers dengan menyebut pekerja tidak terampil yang baru-baru ini diorganisir sebagai "sampah."

Pada kebaktian tahun 1935, pertempuran berlanjut. Di konvensi inilah Lewis diserang secara verbal oleh presiden tukang kayu William Hutcheson dan kemudian dicengkeram kerahnya. Lewis memberikan pukulan kiri yang keras ke rahang Hutcheson--simbol break yang akan menyusul.

THE "INDUSTRIALISTS" dikalahkan di konvensi dan segera berkumpul untuk membentuk Komite Organisasi Industri.

Awalnya dimaksudkan untuk menjadi komite di dalam AFL, CIO segera dipaksa untuk pergi dengan caranya sendiri ketika AFL mengusir 10 Internasional yang mewakili lebih dari satu juta pekerja karena berafiliasi dengannya.

Para "industrialis" sekarang menghadapi tugas besar untuk mengorganisir yang tidak terorganisir. Lewis menyadari bahwa untuk benar-benar membuatnya berhasil, dia harus meminta bantuan dari siapa pun yang telah dia hancurkan dalam pertempuran internal sebelumnya.

John Brophy adalah saingannya yang paling berbahaya. Dia telah berjuang untuk mereformasi UMW antara 1924-28, mencela aksi jual Lewis, menyerukan organisasi yang tidak terorganisir, nasionalisasi tambang, diakhirinya aliansi dengan Partai Republik dan pembentukan partai buruh.

Pada konvensi 1926, Brophy terpilih sebagai presiden, tetapi Lewis mencurangi prosedur dan berhasil menggulingkannya.

Pada tahun 1935, Lewis membuka tangannya kepada Brophy dan kepada orang lain yang telah dia lawan selama ini.

Saat dia memberi tahu Powers Hapgood, pembangkang lain, "Anda dan Brophy punya banyak ide, tetapi mereka terlalu dini. Seorang jenderal yang memimpin pasukannya tidak berguna bagi siapa pun. Tapi sekarang saya siap untuk mengambil alih beberapa dari ini. ide. Ayo pergi Powers." Brophy diberi jabatan direktur penyelenggara.

Mungkin perputaran Lewis yang paling oportunistik, bagaimanapun, adalah pendekatannya terhadap komunis. Tidak ada yang lebih anti-komunis daripada Lewis di tahun 1920-an.

Dia mengeluarkan pamflet pada tahun 1923 berjudul "Upaya Komunis untuk Menangkap Gerakan Buruh Amerika," yang menyatakan bahwa Komunis keluar untuk mengubah serikat pekerja menjadi serikat industri. Dia membual bahwa dia mampu mengusir setiap Komunis di UMW.

Pada tahun 1935, dia berubah pikiran. Pada konvensi Atlantic City, ia menentang resolusi yang akan mencegah serikat pekerja yang dipimpin Komunis untuk berpartisipasi dalam konvensi. Dia berpendapat bahwa anti-komunisme adalah dalih untuk tidak melakukan apa pun untuk membantu perjuangan buruh.

Di CIO, ia menyambut Komunis, mengakui kegunaan mereka sebagai penyelenggara untuk usaha barunya.

Apapun pengaruh dan keterampilan organisasi dari berbagai radikal dalam serikat, itu adalah kebangkitan dari bawah yang mendorong CIO Lewis ke dalam upaya massa.

Apa pun ilusi yang dipegang oleh para pekerja mengenai program-program Roosevelt, kesan bahwa calon buruh telah menang pada tahun 1936, menanamkan kepercayaan pada apa yang sudah menjadi gerakan massa.

AWAL DALAM industri karet, para pekerja di Firestone melakukan pemogokan pada Januari 1936, dengan menduduki pabrik mereka.

Taktik baru ini dirancang untuk mencegah keropeng mengambil pekerjaan dan tampaknya telah diperkenalkan kepada mereka oleh seorang pencetak Hungaria yang telah mempelajari pelajaran ini pada tahun 1914.

Itu disebut pemogokan duduk, dan mencapai kemenangan dalam dua hari.

Taktik itu digunakan beberapa hari kemudian di pabrik Goodyear dan Goodrich di Akron. Goodyear duduk digunakan untuk memprotes PHK. Pihak berwenang mengancam akan mengirim Garda Nasional. The unions responded with a citywide meeting representing 104 unions and 35,000 workers. A general strike was threatened and after 33 days, the strike was successful.

After Akron came Flint. The CIO staked its future on his strike and won. Once the General Motors system was organized, the CIO was at the center of a mass workers' movement that was to reshape the face of U.S. labor for years to come.

The sit-downs in Flint and elsewhere reached their peak in 1937, with more than 200,000 workers involved. By his time, employers recognized the tide had shifted against them and sought to minimize its effects by seeking favorable deals with cooperative union leaders. Thus, Lewis was able to use the threat posed by the rank and file-led movement in auto to extract a deal from the steel companies in 1937.

The founders of the CIO--Lewis, Hillman, Dubinsky--sought to limit the movement that they had helped to start once the results could be achieved without actually releasing the power of the rank and file.

After all, Lewis' objectives were not dissimilar to AFL President William Green's. They just disagreed about the approach.

With the founding of the CIO, U.S. labor went on a march that was to overturn more than a decade of defeats. The success of this industrial unionism and the power exercised by rank-and-file workers shook American capitalism at its heart.

This explosive period of class struggle resulted from a combination of conditions and radicalized a generation of workers and their supporters.

This article originally appeared in the in May 1990 issue of Socialist Worker.


Operation Dixie: The CIO Organizing Committee Papers on Microfilm

The papers include correspondence, addresses, minutes, memoranda, printed materials and miscellaneous documents.

The "Operation Dixie" collection includes the records from four states-- North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Records from the other states involved in the campaign are no longer in existence.

In addition to procedural matters delineating the business, personnel and financial policies of the Organizing Committee, the CIO's objectives, priorities and approaches to organizing and negotiating are apparent in correspondence, printed matter and publicity materials. National, state and local political issues, jurisdictional questions, including relations between the AFL and the CIO, improved labor and living conditions and relations with other departments of the CIO, as well as with a variety of social reform and friends of labor groups are documented. Legal materials include NLRB documents concerning unfair labor practices, elections, etc. Organizers reports and membership records are among the other types of materials found in the records.


Present Activities

Organizing and Representation

The AFL-CIO is a federation of member labor unions that engage in collective bargaining. The federation is funded by “per capita tax,” an indirect fee on union members levied by the federation on local member unions. Per capita tax levied by the AFL-CIO varies: For most members affiliated with a national labor union that is a member of the AFL-CIO, per capita tax is

Related Organizations

Trade Departments

The AFL-CIO is divided into six trade departments that specialize in particular industries. The Building and Construction Trades Department, Maritime Trades Department, Department for Professional Employees, Transportation Trades Department, and Union Label and Service Trades Department allow member unions of the AFL-CIO to coordinate on industry-specific policies. [53]

Associated Organizations

AFL-CIO reports having 12 “related tax-exempt organizations” on its IRS Form 990 tax return. [54] Most are the six trade departments and the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions, which provide forums for AFL-CIO member unions to coordinate industry- or employer-specific policies. The union also reports its in-house insurance company for members as a subsidiary organization. [55]

The AFL-CIO also sponsors the AFL-CIO Lawyers’ Coordinating Committee. The Committee is a membership organization of union-side employment lawyers, enabling union attorneys to pool resources and organize their own demonstrations and activism within the union movement. [56] The remaining related organizations are Working America, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, and the Working for America Institute.

Working America is a 501(c)(5) organization used by the AFL-CIO for political organizing among workers not represented by labor unions. [57] Working America claims over 3 million members. [58] However, reports indicate that as few as one-fourth of the claimed membership actually pay Working America dues of $5 per year. [59] Working America is heavily involved in the AFL-CIO’s political operations, and received $7,630,560 in AFL-CIO funds for political and lobbying activities alone in the union federation’s 2016 fiscal year. [60]

The American Center for International Labor Solidarity (also known as the Solidarity Center) is an international-focused 501(c)(5) associated with the AFL-CIO. According to tax filings, it is principally funded by government grants. [61] The Working for America Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization that runs apprenticeship programs under contract to the U.S. Department of Labor. [62] In 2014, the Institute received almost all of its funds from government grants. [63] In past years, the Institute has received grants from the Energy Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. [64]

Regional and Local Federations

In addition to its member unions and the national headquarters, the AFL-CIO organizes state federations, regional federations, and city-level labor councils to organize its member unions on the local level. The organizations, which are generally do not qualify as labor unions that fall under the transparency rules set by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), conduct campaigns at the state, regional, and local levels to advance the union’s agenda. [65]

Despite the continued rift between the AFL-CIO and the SEIU-led Change to Win union federation, the AFL-CIO will admit Change to Win member unions to its regional and local federations. [66] Local union-organizing supporting groups known as worker centers are also eligible for admission to local councils and state federations. [67]

.65 per member per month. For “directly affiliated local unions,” per capita tax is nine dollars per month. [27]

Direct representation of employees is largely the responsibility of local labor unions. The AFL-CIO reports fewer expenditures on representational activities than political activities and lobbying on the federation’s annual report. Representational activities reported on the AFL-CIO’s annual report focus on organizing and solidarity.

Support for Liberal Organizations

At least since Sweeney was elected AFL-CIO president, the AFL-CIO has been a substantial supporter of the broader left-progressive movement. The federation contributes millions in dues money—in 2016, likely exceeding $12 million—to liberal activist groups annually. [28] Federal labor law allows labor organizations to spend dues money on political lobbying and organizing, with certain limitations. [29]

The role of the AFL-CIO in the progressive infrastructure is substantial. The union federation is reportedly a member of the Democracy Alliance, reporting $110,000 in contributions to the organization of liberal donors in the union’s 2016 fiscal year. The stated purpose of the contributions were support for “Developing Progressive Democratic Community.” [30] Committee on States, a state-level project of the Democracy Alliance, received an additional $25,000 in that year. [31]

The list of progressive organizations receiving funds from the AFL-CIO is long and covers groups in most areas of left-wing politics. Liberal economic think tanks and mobilizing groups like Economic Policy Institute, Center for Popular Democracy, and Center for Economic and Policy Research are among the recipients of AFL-CIO support. Also receiving support are progressive groups that support union-associated special interest positions, such as the Alliance for Retired Americans (which opposes public-sector pension reform) and the Coalition for Better Trade (a protectionist lobby group). [32]

Openly left-wing media outlets receive AFL-CIO funds as well. The Center for American Progress Action Fund, which publishes the ThinkProgress family of blogs, received $25,000 from the federation in 2016. [33] The AFL-CIO also sponsors a progressive radio show aimed at union households, America’s Work Force Radio. [34]

The union federation also sponsors a handful of groups intended to spread the progressive message to conservative-leaning constituency groups. The most notable is likely the Union Sportsmen’s Alliance, an association for union member hunters. In 2016, the group received $119,500 from the AFL-CIO. [35]

In response to declining union membership, the AFL-CIO has proposed admitting non-labor-organizations to formal partnership or affiliate status. [36] The proposal was modified substantially after building and construction trades unions objected to the federation offering membership or membership-like status to environmentalist groups including the Sierra Club. [37] The AFL-CIO itself runs an organizing group for non-unionized employees called Working America that also conducts canvassing operations for AFL-CIO supported candidates. [38]

In 2019, the AFL-CIO gave $60,000 toward a voter turnout and voter protection program administered by NEO Philanthropy through its child organization the Funders Committee for Civic Participation (FCCP). [39]

Green New Deal

In March 2019, the AFL-CIO sent a letter to two Democratic Party sponsors of the Green New Deal (H.R. 109) bill, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), expressing their opposition to the House Resolution. The letter said that the Green New Deal “makes promises that are not achievable or realistic” and that the AFL-CIO would “not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families.” [40]

Political Contributions

Like most national labor unions, the AFL-CIO supports a network of political action committees, known as “committees on political education” (or COPE) in labor union parlance. [41] Under federal law, direct contributions from union treasuries to political campaigns are restricted. Unions are allowed to offer their members the opportunity to contribute to a union-controlled “separate segregated fund” that channels contributions to union-supported candidates and political party committees. [42]

The AFL-CIO’s political committees are substantial supporters of Democratic Party candidates. As of mid-2016, records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics show that the AFL-CIO’s political committees and employees spent over $57 million on contributions since records began in 1990, good for 15 th place among organizations classified. [43]

Polling indicates that in a typical election, American union households (defined as union members and those living with union members) tend to split roughly 60-40 Democratic. [44] The AFL-CIO’s political contributions split 98-2 Democratic. [45]

Judicial Confirmations

In early 2019, the AFL-CIO released a letter urging senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee not to confirm Neomi Rao to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The letter argued that Rao would “roll back civil and human rights and eviscerate regulations that are unpopular with business interests.” It went on to accuse Rao of being racist and anti-LGBTQ-rights. [46]


CIO Unions History and Geography

The CIO transformed American labor and American politics. Defying the American Federation of Labor's commitment to craft unionism, the Committee for Industrial Organization was launched in 1935 by leaders of the United Mine Workers and other AFL unions that had previously embraced industrial union organizing strategies. The goal was to build unions in core industries like steel, auto, aircraft, electrical appliances, meat packing, tires, and textiles that had blocked organizing efforts at every turn.

Led by John L. Lewis, head of the coal miners union, and initially financed by the UMW, the CIO sent hundreds of organizers into the industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest, achieving a breakthrough victory in the Flint sitdown strike against General Motors in early 1937. Expelled from the AFL, the CIO changed its name to the Congress of Industrial Organizations and began a contentious rivalry with the AFL that lasted until 1954 when the two federations reunited as the AFL-CIO.

Here we explore the history and geography of the CIO unions from 1935 through the end of the 1940s with maps and membership data showing the growth and in some cases decline of what will be a growing list of the major unions starting with United Auto Workers (UAW), United Electrical Workers (UE), International Ladies Garment Workers (ILGWU), International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). This section has been researched and written by Cameron Molyneux. Educators may want to consult Teaching CIO Maps: Observation and Discussion Questions

United Auto Workers (UAW) locals 1937-1949

Founded in 1935 as one of the first initiatives of the industrial union organizing committee led by John L. Lewis, the United Autoworkers won a breakthrough victory against General Motors in the dramatic Flint, Michigan sit down strike in the winter of 1936-1937. After General Motors agreed to bargain, Chrysler and several smaller auto companies followed suit and by mid-1937 the new union claimed 150,000 members and was spreading through the auto and parts manufacturing towns of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. These maps chart the spread of the UAW from April 1939 when it counted 172 locals and about 170,000 members to 1944 with 634 locals and more than one million members then though the late 1940s when conversion to civilian production and a post-war recession caused a dip in membership even as the number of locals increased. Watch the UAW spread across the map in the 1940s, anchored in Michigan and the Great Lakes states but claiming dozens of locals in the Northeast and California, and a sprinkling in Alabama, Geogia, and Texas.

United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (UE) locals 1939-1949

Founded in 1936 by workers from General Electric, Westinghouse, Philco, RCA and other companies that made electrical appliances and machinery, UE soon became one of the largest and most controversial unions in the CIO, claiming a peak membership of 686,000 in 1944. UE was known as a left-wing union, many of its top leaders closely associated with the Communist Party, a heritage that would complicate its internal and external politics. The union took strong positions on racial and gender equality. Women were an important part of the work force and by the end of the war comprised about 40% of the membership. At the same time, the leftwing reputation left the union vulnerable to red-baiting, which nearly destroyed the union in the early 1950s. Here are five interactive maps and charts showing the year by year geography of the UE.

International Ladies Garment Workers (ILGWU) locals 1934-1947

Founded in 1900 in four East Coast cities by a workforce largely comprised of immigrants who had prior trade union experience in Europe, the ILGWU was one of the first female majority unions in the American Federation of Labor. As one of the AFL’s few industrial unions, the ILGWU joined the Committee for Industrial Organizing in 1935 as a founding member. But opposed to what they saw as rising communist influence in the CIO, ILGWU leaders left and reaffiliated with the AFL in 1940. Already well-established before joining the CIO, the ILGWU did not experience the same explosion in membership that new unions like the UAW and UE experienced in the later 1930s and 1940s. Despite this, the union maintained steady growth after 1935 and peaked at around 380,000 members in 1947.

International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) locals 1934-1949

The ILWU broke away from the International Longshoreman's Association (ILA) in 1937 in order to join the CIO. The Pacfic Coast Division of the ILA had waged a three-month long strike in 1934, closing all the ports up and down the West Coast and winning employer recognition for locals that had been without bargaining rights since the 1920s. Led by militants who defied orders from ILA headquarters, the 1934 victory had set the stage for the 1937 split. Over the next 12 years, the newly independent ILWU would solidify longshore locals along the entirety of the West Coast while starting successful organizing drives in farming in Hawaii and warehouse locals both on the West coast and states further east. During this period, the union’s membership more than doubled, from 25,000 to 65,000 dues paying members.

International Woodworkers of America (IWA) locals 1937-1955

The union's history began in the Pacific Northwest timber strike of 1935. The failure of the AFL-affiliated United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners to respond to its members’ demands led to lumber and sawmill unionists splintering from the craft union to form the Federation of Woodworkers. A year later, the new union affiliated with the CIO as the International Woodworkers of America. Initially based mostly in Washington and Oregon, the IWA expanded rapidly in numbers and geography. With 35,000 members in 1941, the IWA claimed 94,000 a decade later. Although locals were established in the forests of the Midwest and South, much of the growth was in British Columbia, where Chinese-Canadian organizer Roy Mah and South Asian organizer Darshan Singh Sangha led efforts to organize non-white workforces around the Canadian province.

CIO unions combined membership locals 1939-1949

Here we compile the year by year reports for four CIO unions and show combined membership and total number of locals in hundreds of cities in the first decade of the CIO. The maps and charts provide a sense of the density of CIO membership but at this point include only the UAW, UE, ILGWU, and ILWU. For more detail see the separate reports and maps for United Auto Workers (UAW) locals 1937-1949 United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (UE) locals 1939-1949 International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) locals 1934-1949 International Ladies Garment Workers (ILGWU) locals 1934-1947

Teaching CIO Maps: Observation and Discussion Questions

The Mapping American Social Movements Project is used in hundreds of classrooms at high school and college levels. The maps, charts, and data tables lend themselves to all sorts of observational and interpretative exercises. Here are several discussion questions for the CIO unit.


Philip Murray, the president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), had established a permanent political action committee (PAC) known as "CIO-PAC" in 1942. However, the CIO's political efforts were only marginally effective, and in 1946, the Republicans won a majority in both houses of Congress.

In 1947, Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act. Section 304 amended Section 313 of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act to make it unlawful for any labor organization to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election in which presidential and vice presidential electors or a member of Congress are to be voted for or in connection with any primary election, political convention or caucus to select candidates for such offices.

President Harry S Truman vetoed the Act, but Congress overrode his veto on June 23, 1947.

On July 14, 1947, the CIO published its regular edition of "The CIO News," the labor federation's magazine. On the front page was a statement by Murray, who urged members of the CIO in Maryland to vote for Judge Ed Garmatz, a candidate for Congress in a special election to be held July 15, 1947. Murray's statement also said that the message was being published because Murray and the CIO believed that amended Section 313 unconstitutionally infringed on the rights of free speech, press, and assembly, which are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In January 1948, Murray and the CIO were indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendants moved to dismiss the charges on constitutional grounds. On March 15, 1948, the district court agreed (77 F. Supp. 355) and dismissed the indictment. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which accepted certiorari.

Jesse Climenko served as attorney for the appellant. Charles J. Margiotti of Pittsburgh and Lee Pressman of Washington, DC, served as attorneys for the appellees. [1]

Justice Stanley Forman Reed delivered the opinion for the court. Reed refused to reach the constitutional question before the court but argued instead that the use of funds to publish the statement did not constitute an "expenditure" under Section 313, as amended.

Reed concluded that the term "expenditure" was not a term of art and had no defined meaning.

"The purpose of Congress is a dominant factor in determining meaning," he wrote. "There is no better key to a difficult problem of statutory construction than the law from which the challenged statute emerged." [2]

Reed reviewed the enactment of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act in 1910 as well as its 1911 and 1925 amendments, the court's ruling in Newberry v. United States, and the limitations imposed on unions' political expenditures by the 1943 War Labor Disputes Act.

Quoting extensively from Congressional debates over Section 304 of the Taft-Hartley Act, Reed concluded that Congress clearly did not intend for the act to cover union newspapers supported by advertising or member subscriptions. Reed acknowledged that some members of Congress contemplated a different reading of Section 304. However, such contradictory statements could be dismissed as not indicative of the sense of Congress, Reed said, as "the language itself, coupled with the dangers of unconstitutionality, supports the interpretation which we have placed upon it." [3]

It would require explicit words in an act to convince us that Congress intended to bar a trade journal, a house organ or a newspaper, published by a corporation, from expressing views on candidates or political proposals in the regular course of its publication. It is unduly stretching language to say that the members or stockholders are unwilling participants in such normal organizational activities, including the advocacy thereby of governmental policies affecting their interests, and the support thereby of candidates thought to be favorable to their interests. [4]

Frankfurter's concurrence Edit

Justice Felix Frankfurter issued a concurring opinion: "A case or controversy in the sense of a litigation ripe and right for constitutional adjudication by this Court implies a real contest — an active clash of views, based upon an adequate formulation of issues, so as to bring a challenge to that which Congress has enacted inescapably before the Court," Frankfurter wrote. [5]

Rather, Frankfurter said, the constitutional and the interpretative issues were ripe for review. Frankfurter pointed out that during oral argument before the Supreme Court, the federal government claimed that the district court had misread and misinterpreted its claims. The district court, Frankfurter said, had three times argued that the government had admitted that Section 304 abridged rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, that was not the admission of the government, federal attorneys said. If the court had misinterpreted the government's position, Frankfurter concluded, the case should be remanded for further proceedings rather than adjudicated. However, since a majority has seen fit to grant certiorari, Frankfurter reluctantly agreed to concur in the majority opinion.

Rutledge's concurrence Edit

Justice Rutledge also issued a concurring opinion, in which Justices Black, Douglas and Murphy joined. Rutledge argued that a close reading of the legislative history finds "a veritable fog of contradictions relating to specific possible applications" of Section 304. [6] With no clear legislative guidance, Rutledge argued for a plain reading of the term "expenditure." A dictionary definition of the term shows that it does not matter whether a union publication is supported by general union dues or by advertising and/or subscription an expenditure is an expenditure, which is prohibited by the Act.

That forces the Court to reach the constitutional question, Rutledge argued, and the Act plainly is unconstitutional on such grounds. The statute was not narrowly drawn and did not specifically proscribe the conduct to be prohibited. Rather, it imposed a blanket prohibition on labor union participation in the political process, and that was patently unconstitutional: "To say that labor unions as such have nothing of value to contribute to that process and no vital or legitimate interest in it is to ignore the obvious facts of political and economic life and of their increasing interrelationship in modern society." [7] The majority, Rutledge pointed out, also cites Congressional debate, which indicates a purpose of the statute was to protect minority interests within labor unions. However, even if that reading of the statute's legislative history were correct, the statute would still be unconstitutionally overbroad in reaching that objective.

Rutledge would also have found the statute unconstitutional under the majority's interpretation of the meaning of "expenditure." The majority twists itself into knots to distinguish between general union support for a publication and advertising- or subscription-supported support. However, that, too, runs afoul of the Constitution, Rutledge concluded. "I know of nothing in the Amendment's policy or history which turns or permits turning the applicability of its protections upon the difference between regular and merely casual or occasional distributions. Neither freedom of speech and the press nor the right of peaceable assembly is restricted to persons who can and do pay." [8]


Linimasa

1919 The National Catholic War Council issues The Bishop&rsquos Program for Social Reconstruction. The document called for government insurance for the ill, unemployed and senior citizens the participation of labor in management public housing union organization and a &ldquoliving wage&rdquo for workers.

1919 The National Catholic War Council, created in 1917 to allow the Church to provide support to the U.S. during World War I, was transformed into the National Catholic Welfare Council (NCWC) and became the primary voice of the Catholic Church in the U.S. during the mid-20 th Century.

1919 The Social Action Department (SAD) of the NCWC was established soon after the NCWC came into existence. The department came to promote the social thought of the Catholic Church in the U.S.

1920 Monsignor John A. Ryan becomes first director of SAD. Ryan would be SAD&rsquos longest serving director, holding the position until his death in 1945.

1929 Stock market crash in October inaugurates the Great Depression, leading to unprecedented unemployment and economic problems in the U.S.

1931 Pope Pius XI issues the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (&ldquoIn The Fortieth Year&rdquo), during the 40 th anniversary of Rerum Novarum. The document carries the ideas of Pope Leo XIII&rsquos encyclical even further by advocating the abolition of class conflict.

1933 Congress passes the National Industrial Recovery Act (NRA), part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt&rsquos New Deal package. The law included provisions guaranteeing the rights of workers to form unions, establishment of maximum pay and minimum hours, and standards for working conditions. The act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935.

1935 Congress passes the National Labor Relations Act (also known as the Wagner Act). The law succeeded the NRA by guaranteeing the rights of workers to form unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action (strikes) if necessary.

1935 Father Raymond McGowan, assistant director of SAD, authors Organized Social Justice , which described SAD's basic principles concerning working people and "social justice," but also broke new ground in its preliminary outline of "a right social order": "Organization by Occupational Groups."

1937 First Summer School for Social Action for Priests held at St. Francis Seminary in St. Francis, Wisconsin. Organized by SAD, the schools were established to inform priests as to how to respond to the burgeoning labor organization movement in their parishes.

1937 The Association of Catholic Trade Unionists (ACTU) is founded in New York to provide support to working-class Catholics. Branches would appear in other cities, most prominently in Detroit.

1938 United Mine Workers of American (UMWA) president John L. Lewis founds the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) after the American Federation of Labor (AFL) shows little interest in organizing industries.

1939 Bishop Bernard J. Sheil of Chicago appears at a meeting of the Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee, an affiliate of the CIO, where he advocated for the rights of workers and appealed for labor peace. Sheil&rsquos appearance, along with that of other priests, was a physical manifestation of the Church&rsquos alliance with the CIO.

1939 The United Auto Workers union (UAW) organizes a strike at Detroit&rsquos Chrysler plant following a speedup in production and the subsequent firing of uncooperative workers by management. Popular radio priest Father Charles Coughlin condemned the strike as being detrimental to the entire community and was pointless. He was subsequently rebuked by Father Raymond Clancy and the Archdiocese of Detroit&rsquos newspaper, the Michigan Catholic , both of which stood by the strike and said Coughlin erred in his statements.

1940 The NCWC issues &ldquoChurch and Social Order.&rdquo While its Social Action Department had long been the voice of social justice for the Church in the U.S., this statement by the NCWC was perhaps even more influential due to the prominent nature of the Council. The document endorses most of SAD&rsquos reforms and endorsed a program of reform - a "right social order" that explicitly called for a sharp break with economic business as usual.

1940 Father John M. Hayes, a member of the staff at SAD, begins his newsletter series &ldquoSocial Action Notes for Priests.&rdquo The newsletters were used to keep priests across the country abreast of actions undertaken by SAD in relation to social justice and labor issues.

1940 Catholic Philip Murray is named president of the CIO. The former head of several unions, Murray is elevated to post after the retirement of John L. Lewis. Murray would be the longest serving president of the organization, remaining at the post until his death in 1952.

1940-41 Detroit ACTU president Paul Weber sets out the idea of &ldquoeconomic democracy&rdquo in the pages of the ACTU&rsquos newspaper, The Wage Earner . Weber, opposed to both modern capitalism, and communism and socialism, proposed that industries be divided into their own self-governing units, with labor and management working together as equal partners. These units would be governed, in turn, by a national economic affairs congress.

1945 Upon the death of director Monsignor John A. Ryan, SAD elevates assistant director Father Raymond McGowan to the position of director. McGowan would lead the department until 1954, when he stepped down due to health issues.

1948 SAD issues its annual Labor Day Statement, causing much consternation within the Church. The statement strongly suggested that the Taft-Hartley Act, which was passed in 1947 and prohibited many so-called &ldquounfair labor practices.&rdquo Opponents of the act, including SAD, saw it as a severe limitation of the rights of workers and the power of unions. Many Church leaders did not share SAD&rsquos view, and would try to limit the power of the department from this time forward.

1949 Internal disputes over communists within its constituent members led to open battle in the CIO over the issue. One of the members, the United Electrical and Machine Workers of America (UE), which had a heavy communist influence in its leadership, would leave the CIO before the organization expelled it. In 1950, ten more communist-led unions were ousted from the CIO.

1955 The CIO merges with the AFL to form the AFL-CIO. The two organizations merged after former contentious issues, including the AFL&rsquos refusal to organize industrial companies, had been solved.


The Church and the CIO

Within the context of the Wagner Act (1935), which the Church firmly supported, Lewis’ Mineworkers not only led the movement to found the CIO, but also provided it with much of its initial funding and many of its organizers. Among those whom Lewis hired were members of the Communist Party, which had begun sustained industrial-union work in the late 1920s. They were especially active and effective in steel mills, packinghouses, agricultural implement plants, machine shops, and electrical equipment and radio manufacturing plants.

For the next twenty years and beyond, the official Catholic Church, especially the SAD, not only stood with and for its working-class membership, but also strongly supported the CIO’s continuing efforts to expand its membership. That was the only way, as the SAD continually argued, that economic democracy – a truly Christian economic order – would come into being. Internal opposition to this stance and its accompanying commitments developed early in the CIO’s history and flared up periodically, growing stronger as the years went on, but never seriously threatened its hegemony.

The documents that follow provide the broad outlines of this Catholic labor moment in dire danger of being “overpower[ed]” by a “present,” in Walter Benjamin’s words, that does not “recognize itself as intended” in it. For, as he argued, “even the dead” are not safe “from the enemy if he is victorious.” This Catholic labor moment needs to become part of our consciousness as American Catholics.


Tonton videonya: Հայաստանի հագուստի արդյունաբերության արդիականացման ՄԱԱԶԿ ծրագիր (Januari 2022).