Labor history of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search
Mine workers clash with soldiers during the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 in Baltimore

The labor history of the United States describes the history of organized labor, as well as more general history of working people, in the United States. Pressures dictating the nature and power of organized labor have included the evolution and power of the corporation, efforts by employers and private agencies to limit or control unions, and U.S. labor law. As a response, organized unions and labor federations have competed, evolved, merged, and split against a backdrop of changing social philosophies and periodic federal intervention.

As commentator E. J. Dionne has noted, the union movement has traditionally espoused a set of values—solidarity being the most important, the sense that each should look out for the interests of all. From this followed commitments to mutual assistance, to a rough-and-ready sense of equality, to a disdain for elitism, and to a belief that democracy and individual rights did not stop at the plant gate or the office reception room. Dionne notes that these values are "increasingly foreign to American culture".[1]

"Labor-based political parties have been an important electoral force in every advanced capitalist country. Every one, that is, except the United States. Elsewhere, these parties were established in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, and, ever since then, there has been a great debate about why the American experience was different."[2]

The history of organized labor has been a specialty of scholars since the 1890s, and has produced a large amount of scholarly literature focused on the structure of organized unions. In the 1960s, as social history gained popularity, a new emphasis emerged on the history of workers, including unorganized workers, and with special regard to gender and race. This is called "the new labor history". Much scholarship has attempted to bring the social history perspectives into the study of organized labor.

Contents

Organized labor to 1900

Early female unions

The first local trade unions of men in the United States formed in the late 18th century, and women began organizing in the 1820s.[3] However, the movement came into its own after the Civil War, when the short-lived National Labor Union (NLU) became the first federation of American unions.

Women working under sweat shop conditions organized the first union in the early 19th century. According to the book American Labor, in 1834–1836 women worked 16–17 hours a day to earn $1.25 to $2.00 a week. A girl weaver in a non-union mill would receive $4.20 a week versus $12.00 for the same work in a union mill. The workers had to buy their own needles and thread from the proprietor. They were fined for being a few minutes late for work.

Women carried their own foot treadle machines or were held in the shops until the entire shop had completed an immediate delivery order. Their pay was often shorted, but a protest might result in immediate dismissal. Sometimes whole families worked from sun up to midnight. Pulmonary ailments were common due to dust accumulation on the floors and tables. Some shops had leaks or openings in the roofs, and workers worked in inclement weather.

Despite the odds, some women challenged the employers. Their first organization was as an auxiliary, the Daughters of Liberty in 1765. In 1825, the women organized and called themselves the United Tailoresses of New York. Strikes occurred over the years, and some were successful.

Commonwealth v. Hunt

The history of labor disputes in America substantially precedes the Revolutionary period. In 1636, for instance, there was a fishermen’s strike on an island off the coast of Maine and in 1677 twelve carmen were fined for going on strike in New York City.[4] However, most instances of labor unrest during the colonial period were temporary and isolated, and rarely resulted in the formation of permanent groups of laborers for negotiation purposes.[5] Little legal recourse was available to those injured by the unrest, because strikes were not typically considered illegal.[6] The only known case of criminal prosecution of workers in the colonial era occurred as a result of a carpenters’ strike in Savannah, Georgia in 1746.[7]

By the beginning of 19th-century, after the revolution, little had changed. The career path for most artisans still involved apprenticeship under a master, followed by moving into independent production.[8] However, over the course of the Industrial Revolution, this model rapidly changed, particularly in the major metropolitan areas. For instance, in Boston in 1790, the vast majority of the 1,300 artisans in the city described themselves as “master workman”. By 1815, journeymen workers without independent means of production had displaced these “masters” as the majority.[9] By that time journeymen also outnumbered masters in New York and Philadelphia.[10] This shift occurred as a result of large-scale transatlantic and rural-urban migration. Migration into the coastal cities created a larger population of potential laborers, which in turn allowed controllers of capital to invest in labor-intensive enterprises on a larger scale.[11] Craft workers found that these changes launched them into competition with each other to a degree that they had not experienced previously, which limited their opportunities and created substantial risks of downward mobility that had not existed prior to that time.[12]

These conditions led to the first labor combination cases in America. Over the first half of the 19th century, there are twenty-three known cases of indictment and prosecution for criminal conspiracy, taking place in six states: Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Virginia.[13] The central question in these cases was invariably whether workmen in combination would be permitted to use their collective bargaining power to obtain benefits—increased wages, decreased hours, or improved conditions—which were beyond their ability to obtain as individuals. The cases overwhelmingly resulted in convictions. However, in most instances the plaintiffs’ desire was to establish favorable precedent, not to impose harsh penalties, and the fines were typically modest.[14]

One of the central themes of the cases prior to the landmark decision in Commonwealth vs. Hunt, which settled the legality of unions, was the applicability of the English common law in post-revolutionary America. Whether the English common law applied—and in particular whether the common law notion that a conspiracy to raise wages was illegal applied—was frequently the subject of debate between the defense and the prosecution.[15] For instance, in Commonwealth v. Pullis, a case in 1806 against a combination of journeymen cordwainers in Philadelphia for conspiracy to raise their wages, the defense attorneys referred to the common law as arbitrary and unknowable and instead praised the legislature as the embodiment of the democratic promise of the revolution.[16] In ruling that a combination to raise wages was per se illegal, Recorder Moses Levy strongly disagreed, writing that “[t]he acts of the legislature form but a small part of that code from which the citizen is to learn his duties . . . [i]t is in the volumes of the common law we are to seek for information in the far greater number, as well as the most important causes that come before our tribunals.”[17]

As a result of the spate of convictions against combinations of laborers, the typical narrative of early American labor law states that, prior to Hunt in Massachusetts in 1842, peaceable combinations of workingmen to raise wages, shorten hours or ensure employment, were illegal in the United States, as they had been under English common law.[18] In England, criminal conspiracy laws were first held to include combinations in restraint of trade in the Court of Star Chamber early in the 17th Century.[19] The precedent was solidified in 1721 by The King v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, which found tailors guilty of a conspiracy to raise wages.[20] Leonard Levy went so far as to refer to Hunt as the “Magna Carta of American trade-unionism,”[21] illustrating its perceived standing as the major point of divergence in the American and English legal treatment of unions which, “removed the stigma of criminality from labor organizations.”[22]

However, Levy’s statement incorrectly characterizes the case law in American prior to Hunt. Pullis was actually unusual in strictly following the English common law and holding that a combination to raise wages was by itself illegal. More often combination cases prior to Hunt did not hold that unions were illegal per se, but rather found some other justification for a conviction.[23] After Pullis in 1806, eighteen other prosecutions of laborers for conspiracies followed within the next three decades.[24] However, only one such case, People v. Fisher, also held that a combination for the purpose of raising wages was illegal.[25] Several other cases held that the methods used by the unions, rather than the unions themselves, were illegal.[26] For instance, in People v. Melvin, cordwainers were again convicted of a conspiracy to raise wages. Unlike in Pullis, however, the court held that the combination’s existence itself was not unlawful, but nevertheless reached a conviction because the cordwainers had refused to work for any master who paid lower wages, or with any laborer who accepted lower wages, than what the combination had stipulated.[27] The court held that methods used to obtain higher wages would be unlawful if they were judged to be deleterious to the general welfare of the community.[28] Commonwealth v. Morrow continued to refine this standard, stating that, “an agreement of two or more to the prejudice of the rights of others or of society” would be illegal.[29] Another line of cases, led by Justice John Gibson of the Supreme Court Pennsylvania’s decision in Commonwealth v. Carlisle, held that motive of the combination, rather than simply its existence, was the key to illegality.[30] Gibson wrote, “Where the act is lawful for an individual, it can be the subject of a conspiracy, when done in concert, only where there is a direct intention that injury shall result from it.”[31] Still other courts rejected Pullis’ rule of per se illegality in favor of a rule that asked whether the combination was a but-for cause of injury.[32] Thus, as economist Edwin Witte stated, “[T]he doctrine that a combination to raise wages is illegal was allowed to die by common consent. No leading case was required for its overthrow.”[33] Nevertheless, while Hunt was not the first case to hold that labor combinations were legal, it was the first to do so explicitly and in clear terms.


Lowell, Massachusetts

Some of the earliest organizing by women occurred in Lowell, Massachusetts. In 1845, the trade union of the Lowell mills sent representatives to speak to the Massachusetts legislature about conditions in the factories, leading to the first governmental investigation into working conditions. The mill strikes of 1834 and 1836, while largely unsuccessful, involved upwards of 2,000 workers and represented a substantial organizational effort.[34]

National Labor Union

The National Labor Union (NLU), founded in 1866, was the first national labor federation in the United States. It was dissolved in 1872.

Order of the Knights of St. Crispin

The regional Order of the Knights of St. Crispin was founded in the northeast in 1867 and claimed 50,000 members by 1870, by far the largest union in the country. A closely associated union of women, the Daughters of St. Crispin, formed in 1870. In 1879 the Knights formally admitted women, who by 1886 comprised 10% of the union's membership,[35] but it was poorly organized and soon declined. They fought encroachments of machinery and unskilled labor on autonomy of skilled shoe workers. One provision in the Crispin constitution explicitly sought to limit the entry of "green hands" into the trade, but this failed because the new machines could be operated by semi-skilled workers and produce more shoes than hand sewing.[36]

Railroad brotherhoods

With the rapid growth and consolidation of large railroad systems after 1870, union organizations sprang up, covering the entire nation. By 1901, 17 major railway brotherhoods were in operation; they generally worked amicably with management, which recognized their usefulness.[37] Key unions included the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.[38] Their main goal was building insurance and medical packages for their members, and negotiating bureaucratic work rules that favored their membership, such as seniority and grievance procedures.[39]

They were not members of the AFL, and fought off more radical rivals such as the Knights of Labor in the 1880s and the American Railroad Union in the 1890s. They consolidated their power in 1916, after threatening a national strike, by securing the Adamson Act, a federal law that provided 10 hours pay for an eight hour day. At the end World War I, they promoted nationalization of the railroads, and conducted a national strike in 1919. Both programs failed, and the brotherhoods were largely stagnant in the 1920s. They generally were independent politically, but supported the third party campaign of Robert LaFollette in 1924.[40]

Knights of Labor

The first effective labor organization that was more than regional in membership and influence was the Knights of Labor, organized in 1869. The Knights believed in the unity of the interests of all producing groups and sought to enlist in their ranks not only all laborers but everyone who could be truly classified as a producer. The acceptance of all producers led to explosive growth after 1880. Under the leadership of Terence Powderly they championed a variety of causes, sometimes through political or cooperative ventures.[41]

Powderly hoped to gain their ends through politics and education rather than through economic coercion. The Knights were especially successful in developing a working class culture, involving women, families, sports, and leisure activities and educational projects for the membership. The Knights strongly promoted their version of republicanism that stressed the centrality of free labor, preaching harmony and cooperation among producers, as opposed to parasites and speculators.[42]

One of the earliest railroad strikes was also one of the most successful. In 1885, the Knights of Labor led railroad workers to victory against Jay Gould and his entire Southwestern Railway system. In early 1886, the Knights were trying to coordinate 1400 strikes involving over 600,000 workers spread over much of the country. The tempo had doubled over 1885, and involved peaceful as well as violent confrontations in many sectors, such as railroads, street railroads, coal mining, and the McCormick Reaper Factory in Chicago, with demands usually focused on the eight hour day. Suddenly, it all collapsed, largely because the Knights were unable to handle so much on their plate at once, and because they took a smashing blow in the aftermath of the Haymarket Riot in May 1886 in Chicago.[43]

As strikers rallied against the McCormick plant, a team of political anarchists, who were not Knights, tried to piggyback support among striking Knights workers. A bomb exploded as police were dispersing a peaceful rally, killing seven policemen and wounding many others. The anarchists were blamed, and their spectacular trial gained national attention. The Knights of Labor were seriously injured by the false accusation that the Knights promoted anarchistic violence. Many Knights locals transferred to the less radical and more respectable AFL unions or railroad brotherhoods.[44]

American Federation of Labor

The American Federation of Labor union label, circa 1900.

The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions began in 1881 under the leadership of Samuel Gompers. Like the National Labor Union, it was a federation of different unions and did not directly enroll workers. Its original goals were to encourage the formation of trade unions and to obtain legislation, such as prohibition of child labor, a national eight hour day, and exclusion of foreign contract workers.

The Federation made some efforts to obtain favorable legislation, but had little success in organizing or chartering new unions. It came out in support of the proposal, traditionally attributed to Peter J. McGuire of the Carpenters Union, for a national Labor Day holiday on the first Monday in September, and threw itself behind the eight hour movement, which sought to limit the workday by either legislation or union organizing.

In 1886, as the relations between the trade union movement and the Knights of Labor worsened, McGuire and other union leaders called for a convention to be held at Columbus, Ohio on December 8. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions merged with the new organization, known as the American Federation of Labor or AFL, formed at that convention.[45]

The AFL was formed in large part because of the dissatisfaction of many trade union leaders with the Knights of Labor, an organization that contained many trade unions and that had played a leading role in some of the largest strikes of the era. The new AFL distinguished itself from the Knights by emphasizing the autonomy of each trade union affiliated with it and limiting membership to workers and organizations made up of workers, unlike the Knights which, because of its producerist focus, welcomed some who were not wage workers.

The AFL grew steadily in the late 19th century while the Knights all but disappeared. Although Gompers at first advocated something like industrial unionism, he retreated from that in the face of opposition from the craft unions that made up most of the AFL.

The unions of the AFL were composed primarily of skilled men; unskilled workers, African-Americans, and women were generally excluded. The AFL saw women as threatening the jobs of men, since they often worked for lower wages. The AFL provided little to no support for women's attempts to unionize.[46]

Western Federation of Miners

The Western Federation of Miners (WFM) was created in 1893. Frequently in competition with the American Federation of Labor, the WFM spawned new federations, including the Western Labor Union (later renamed to the American Labor Union). The WFM took a conservative turn in the aftermath of the Colorado Labor Wars and the trials of its president, Charles Moyer, and its secretary treasurer, Big Bill Haywood, for the conspiratorial assassination of Idaho's former governor. Although both were found innocent, the WFM, headed by Moyer, separated itself from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) (launched by Haywood and other labor radicals, socialists, and anarchists in 1905) just a few years after that organization's founding convention. In 1916 the WFM became the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, which was eventually absorbed by the United Steelworkers of America.[47]

Pullman Strike

During the major economic depression of the early 1890s, the Pullman Palace Car Company cut wages in its factories. Discontented workers joined the American Railway Union (ARU), led by Eugene V. Debs, which supported their strike by launching a boycott of all Pullman cars on all railroads. ARU members across the nation refused to switch Pullman cars onto trains. When these switchmen were disciplined, the entire ARU struck the railroads on June 26, 1894. Within four days, 125,000 workers on twenty-nine railroads had people quit work rather than handle Pullman cars.[48]

The railroads were able to get Edwin Walker, general counsel for the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway, appointed as a special federal attorney with responsibility for dealing with the strike. Walker went to federal court and obtained an injunction barring union leaders from supporting the boycott in any way. The court injunction was based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which prohibited "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States". Debs and other leaders of the ARU ignored the injunction, and federal troops were called into action.[49]

The strike was broken up by United States Marshals and some 2,000 United States Army troops, commanded by Nelson Miles, sent in by President Grover Cleveland on the premise that the strike interfered with the delivery of U.S. Mail. During the course of the strike, 13 strikers were killed and 57 were wounded. An estimated $340,000 worth of property damage occurred during the strike. Debs went to prison for six months for violating the federal court order, and the ARU disintegrated.

Organized labor 1900–1920

New York City shirtwaist workers on strike, taking a lunch break.

From 1890 to 1914 the unionized wages in manufacturing rose from $17.63 a week to $21.37, and the average work week fell from 54.4 to 48.8 hours a week. The pay for all factory workers was $11.94 and $15.84 because unions reached only the more skilled factory workers.[50]

Coal strikes, 1900–1902

The United Mine Workers was successful in its strike against soft coal (bituminous) mines in the Midwest in 1900, but its strike against the hard coal (anthracite) mines of Pennsylvania turned into a national political crisis in 1902. President Theodore Roosevelt brokered a compromise solution that kept the flow of coal going, and higher wages and shorter hours, but did not include recognition of the union as a bargaining agent.[51]

Women's Trade Union League

The Women's Trade Union League was a support group that did not organize locals. It formed at the 1903 AFL convention in Boston and was loosely tied to the AFL. It was composed of both workingwomen and middle-class reformers, and provided financial assistance, moral support, and training in work skills and social refinement for blue collar women. Most active in 1907–1922 under Margaret Dreier Robins, it publicized the cause and lobbied for minimum wages and restrictions on hours of work and child labor.[52][53]

Industrial Workers of the World

Flyer distributed in Lawrence, Massachusetts September 1912. The Lawrence textile strike was a strike of immigrant workers

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), whose members became known as "Wobblies", was founded in 1905 by a group of about 30 labor radicals. Their most prominent leader was William "Big Bill" Haywood.[54] The IWW pioneered creative tactics, and organized along the lines of industrial unionism rather than craft unionism; in fact, they went even further, pursuing the goal of "One Big Union" and the abolition of the wage system. Many, though not all, Wobblies favored anarcho-syndicalism.[55]

Much of the IWW's organizing took place in the West, and most of its early members were miners, lumbermen, cannery, and dock workers. In 1912 the IWW organized a strike of more than twenty thousand textile workers, and by 1917 the Agricultural Workers Organization (AWO) of the IWW claimed a hundred thousand itinerant farm workers in the heartland of North America.[56] Eventually the concept of One Big Union spread from dock workers to maritime workers, and thus was communicated to many different parts of the world. Dedicated to workplace and economic democracy, the IWW allowed men and women as members, and organized workers of all races and nationalities, without regard to current employment status. At its peak it had 150,000 members (with 200,000 membership cards issued between 1905 and 1916[57]), but it was fiercely repressed during, and especially after, World War I with many of its members killed, about 10,000 organizers imprisoned, and thousands more deported as foreign agitators. The IWW proved that unskilled workers could be organized and gave unskilled workers a sense of dignity and self-worth. The IWW exists today with about 2,000 members, but its most significant impact was during its first two decades of existence.

Government and labor

In 1908 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Loewe v. Lawlor (the Danbury Hatters' Case). In 1902 the Hatters' Union instituted a nationwide boycott of the hats made by a nonunion company in Connecticut. Owner Dietrich Loewe brought suit against the union for unlawful combinations to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Court ruled that the union was subject to an injunction and liable for the payment of triple damages.

In 1915 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, speaking for the Court, again decided in favor of Loewe, upholding a lower federal court ruling ordering the union to pay damages of $252,130. (The cost of lawyers had already exceeded $100,000, paid by the AFL). This was not a typical case in which a few union leaders were punished with short terms in jail; specifically, the life savings of several hundreds of the members were attached. The lower court ruling established a major precedent, and became a serious issue for the unions.

The Clayton Act of 1914 presumably exempted unions from the antitrust prohibition and established for the first time the Congressional principle that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." However, judicial interpretation so weakened it that prosecutions of labor under the antitrust acts continued until the enactment of the Norris-La Guardia Act in 1932.

State legislation 1912–1918: 36 states adopted the principle of workmen's compensation for all industrial accidents. Also: prohibition of the use of an industrial poison, several states require one day's rest in seven, the beginning of effective prohibition of night work, of maximum limits upon the length of the working day, and of minimum wage laws for women.

Railroad brotherhoods

The Great Railroad Strike of 1922, a nationwide railroad shop workers strike, began on July 1. The immediate cause of the strike was the Railroad Labor Board's announcement that hourly wages would be cut by seven cents on July 1, which prompted a shop workers vote on whether or not to strike. The operators' union did not join in the strike, and the railroads employed strikebreakers to fill three-fourths of the roughly 400,000 vacated positions, increasing hostilities between the railroads and the striking workers.[58]

On September 1, a federal judge issued the sweeping "Daugherty Injunction" against striking, assembling, and picketing. Unions bitterly resented the injunction; a few sympathy strikes shut down some railroads completely. The strike eventually died out as many shopmen made deals with the railroads on the local level. The often unpalatable concessions — coupled with memories of the violence and tension during the strike — soured relations between the railroads and the shopmen for years.[59]

World War I

During World War I Gompers and the AFL were strong supporters of the war effort. They minimized strikes as wages soared and full employment was reached. The AFL unions strongly encouraged their young men to enlist in the military, and fiercely opposed efforts to reduce recruiting and slow war production by the anti-war IWW and left-wing Socialists. President Wilson appointed Gompers to the powerful Council of National Defense, where he set up the War Committee on Labor. The AFL membership reached 2.4 million in 1917.[60]

Women telephone operators win strike in 1919

Moved to action by the rising cost of living, the president of the Boston Telephone Operator's Union, Julia O'Connor, asked for higher wages from the New England Telephone Company. Wages of operators averaged a third less than women in manufacturing.[61] In April 9000 women operators in New England went on strike, shutting down most telephone service. The company hired college students as strikebreakers, but they came under violent attack by men supporting the strikers. In a few days a settlement was reached giving higher wages. After the success O'Connor began a national campaign to organize women operators.[62]

Coal Strike of 1919

"Keeping Warm" The Los Angeles Times, a conservative newspaper, demands federal action to stop the coal strike, November 22, 1919

The United Mine Workers under John L. Lewis called a strike for November 1, 1919 in all soft (bituminous) coal fields.[63] They had agreed to a wage agreement to run until the end of World War I and now sought to capture some of their industry's wartime gains. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer invoked the Lever Act, a wartime measure that made it a crime to interfere with the production or transportation of necessities. Ignoring the court order 400,000 coal workers walked out. The coal operators played the radical card, saying Lenin and Trotsky had ordered the strike and were financing it, and some of the press echoed that language.[64]

Lewis, facing criminal charges and sensitive to the propaganda campaign, withdrew his strike call. Lewis did not fully control the faction-ridden UAW and many locals ignored his call.[65] As the strike dragged on into its third week, supplies of the nation's main fuel were running low and the public called for ever stronger government action. Final agreement came after five weeks with the miners getting a 14% raise, far less than they wanted.[66]

Weakness of organized labor 1920–1929

The 1920s marked a period of sharp decline for the labor movement. Union membership and activities fell sharply in the face of economic prosperity, a lack of leadership within the movement, and anti-union sentiments from both employers and the government. The unions were much less able to organize strikes. In 1919, more than 4 million workers (or 21 percent of the labor force) participated in about 3,600 strikes. In contrast, 1929 witnessed about 289,000 workers (or 1.2 percent of the labor force) stage only 900 strikes.[67]

The economic prosperity of the decade led to stable prices, eliminating one major incentive to join unions.[68] Unemployment rarely dipped below 5 percent in the 1920s and few workers feared real wage losses.[69]

The 1920s also saw a lack of strong leadership within the labor movement. Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor died in 1924 after serving as the organization's president for 37 years. Observers said successor William Green, who was the secretary-treasurer of the United Mine Workers, "lacked the aggressiveness and the imagination of the AFL's first president".[70] The AFL was down to less than 3 million members in 1925 after hitting a peak of 4 million members in 1920.[71]

Employers across the nation led a successful campaign against unions known as the "American Plan", which sought to depict unions as "alien" to the nation's individualistic spirit.[72] In addition, some employers, like the National Association of Manufacturers, used Red Scare tactics to discredit unionism by linking them to Communist activities.[73]

U.S. courts were less hospitable to union activities during the 1920s than in the past. In this decade, corporations used twice as many court injunctions against strikes than any comparable period. In addition, the practice of forcing employees (by threat of termination) to sign yellow-dog contracts that said they would not join a union was not outlawed until 1932.[73]

Although the labor movement fell in prominence during the 1920s, the Great Depression would ultimately bring it back to life.

Organized labor 1929–1955

Open battle between striking teamsters armed with pipes and the police in the streets of Minneapolis, June 1934.

The Great Depression and organized labor

The stock market crashed in October 1929, and ushered in the Great Depression. By the winter of 1932–33, the economy was so perilous that the unemployment rate hit the 25 percent mark.[74] Unions lost members during this time because laborers could not afford to pay their dues and furthermore, numerous strikes against wage cuts left the unions impoverished: "... one might have expected a reincarnation of organizations seeking to overthrow the capitalistic system that was now performing so poorly. Some workers did indeed turn to such radical movements as Communism, but, in general, the nation seemed to have been shocked into inaction."[75]

Though unions were not acting yet, cities across the nation witnessed local and spontaneous marches by frustrated relief applicants. In March 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party's Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew to 550 in 1932.[76]

The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communists and Socialists, who wanted to organize "unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations".[77] Workers turned to these radical groups until organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act.[78]

The Norris-La Guardia Anti-Injunction Act of 1932

On March 23, 1932, President Herbert Hoover signed what became known as the Norris-La Guardia Act, marking the first of many pro-union bills that Washington would pass in the 1930s.[71] Also known as the Anti-Injunction Bill, it offered procedural and substantive protections against the easy issuance of court injunctions during labor disputes, which had limited union behavior in the 1920s.[79] Although the act only applied to federal courts, numerous states would pass similar acts in the future. Additionally, the act outlawed yellow-dog contracts, which were documents some employers forced their employees to sign to ensure they would not join a union; employees who refused to sign were terminated from their jobs.[80]

The passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act signified a victory for the American Federation of Labor, which had been lobbying Congress to pass it for slightly more than five years.[71] It also marked a large change in public policy. Up until the passage of this act, the collective bargaining rights of workers were severely hampered by judicial control.[81]

FDR and the National Industrial Recovery Act

President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, and immediately began implementing programs to alleviate the economic crisis. In June, he passed the National Industrial Recovery Act, which gave workers the right to organize into unions.[82] Though it contained other provisions, like minimum wage and maximum hours, its most significant passage was, "Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representative of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers."[83]

This portion, which was known as Section 7(a), was symbolic to workers in the United States because it stripped employers of their rights to either coerce them or refuse to bargain with them.[79] While no power of enforcement was written into the law, it "recognized the rights of the industrial working class in the United States".[84]

Although the National Industrial Recovery Act was ultimately deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935 and replaced by the Wagner Act two months after that, it fueled workers to join unions and strengthened those organizations.[85]

In response to both the Norris-La Guardia Act and the NIRA, workers who were previously unorganized in a number of industries—such as rubber workers, oil and gas workers and service workers—began to look for organizations that would allow them to band together.[86] The NIRA strengthened workers' resolve to unionize and instead of participating in unemployment or hunger marches, they started to participate in strikes for union recognition in various industries.”[87] In 1933, the number of work stoppages jumped to 1,695, double its figure from 1932. In 1934, 1,865 strikes occurred, involving more than 1.4 million workers.[83]

The elections of 1934 might have reflected the "radical upheaval sweeping the country", as Roosevelt won the greatest majority either party ever held in the Senate and 322 Democrats won seats in the United States House of Representatives versus 103 Republicans. It is possible that "the great social movement from below thus strengthened the independence of the executive branch of government."[88]

Despite the impact of such changes on the United States' political structure and on workers' empowerment, some scholars have criticized the impacts of these policies from a classical economic perspective. Cole and Ohanian (2004) find that the New Deal's pro-labor policies are an important factor in explaining the weak recovery from the Great Depression and the rise in real wages in some industrial sectors during this time.[89]

The American Federation of Labor: craft unionism vs. industrial unionism

The AFL was growing rapidly, from 2.1 million members in 1933 to 3.4 million in 1936. But it was experiencing severe internal stresses regarding how to organize new members.[90] Traditionally, the AFL organized unions by craft rather than industry, where electricians or stationary engineers would form their own skill-oriented unions, rather than join a large automobile-making union. Most AFL leaders, including president William Green, were reluctant to shift from the organization's longstanding craft unionism and started to clash with other leaders within the organization, such as John L. Lewis.[79]

The issue came up at the annual AFL convention in San Francisco in 1934 and 1935, but the majority voted against a shift to industrial unionism both years. After the defeat at the 1935 convention, nine leaders from the industrial faction led by Lewis met and organized the Committee for Industrial Organization within the AFL to "encourage and promote organization of workers in the mass production industries" for "educational and advisory" functions.[79]

The CIO, which later changed its name to the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), formed unions with the hope of bringing them into the AFL, but the AFL refused to extend full membership privileges to CIO unions. In 1938, the AFL expelled the CIO and its million members, and they formed a rival federation.[91] The two federations fought it out for membership; while both supported Roosevelt and the New Deal, the CIO was further to the left, while the AFL had close ties to the big city machines.

John L. Lewis and the CIO

John Llewellyn Lewis (1880–1969) was the president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMW) from 1920 to 1960, and the driving force behind the founding of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Using UMW organizers the new CIO established the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) and organized millions of other industrial workers in the 1930s.[92]

Lewis threw his support behind Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) at the outset of the New Deal. After the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, Lewis traded on the tremendous appeal that Roosevelt had with workers in those days, sending organizers into the coal fields to tell workers "The President wants you to join the Union." His UMW was one of FDR's main financial supporters in 1936, contributing over $500,000.[93]

Lewis expanded his base by organizing the so-called "captive mines", those held by the steel producers such as U.S. Steel. That required in turn organizing the steel industry, which had defeated union organizing drives in 1892 and 1919 and which had resisted all organizing efforts since then fiercely. The task of organizing steelworkers, on the other hand, put Lewis at odds with the AFL, which looked down on both industrial workers and the industrial unions that represented all workers in a particular industry, rather than just those in a particular skilled trade or craft.

Lewis was the first president of the Committee of Industrial Organizations. Lewis, in fact, was the CIO: his UMWA provided the great bulk of the financial resources that the CIO poured into organizing drives by the United Automobile Workers (UAW), the USWA, the Textile Workers Union and other newly formed or struggling unions. Lewis hired back many of the people he had exiled from the UMWA in the 1920s to lead the CIO and placed his protégé Philip Murray at the head of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee.

The most dramatic success was the 1936-7 sit-down strike that paralyzed General Motors. It enabled CIO unionization of GM and the main automobile firms (except Ford, which held out for a few years).[94] However it had negative ramifications, as the Gallup Poll reported, "More than anything else the use of the sit-down strike alienated the sympathies of the middle classes."[95]

The CIO's actual membership (as opposed to publicity figures) was 2,850,000 for February 1942. This included 537,000 members of the auto workers (UAW), nearly 500,000 Steel Workers, almost 300,000 members of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, about 180,000 Electrical Workers, and about 100,000 Rubber Workers. The CIO also included 550,000 members of the United Mine Workers, which did not formally withdraw from the CIO until later in the year. The remaining membership of 700,000 was scattered among thirty-odd smaller unions.[96]

Historians of the union movement in the 1930s have tried to explain its remarkable success in terms of the rank and file—what motivated them to suddenly rally around leaders (such as John L. Lewis) who had been around for decades with little success. Why was the militancy of the mid-1930s so short lived?[97][98][99]

Upsurge in World War II

The war mobilization dramatically expanded union membership, from 8.7 million in 1940 to over 14.3 million in 1945, about 36% of the work force. For the first time large numbers of women factory workers were enrolled. Both the AFL and CIO supported Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, with 75% or more of their votes, millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of precinct workers.[100]

However, Lewis opposed Roosevelt on foreign policy grounds in 1940. He took the Mine Workers out of the CIO and rejoined the AFL. All labor unions strongly supported the war effort after June 1941 (when Germany invaded the Soviet Union). Left-wing activists crushed wildcat strikes. Nonetheless, Lewis realized that he had enormous leverage. In 1943, the middle of the war, when the rest of labor was observing a policy against strikes, Lewis led the miners out on a twelve-day strike for higher wages. The bipartisan Conservative coalition in Congress passed anti-union legislation over liberal opposition, most notably the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.[101]

A statistical analysis of the AFL and CIO national and local leaders in 1945 shows that opportunity for advancement in the labor movement was wide open. In contrast with other elites, the labor leaders did not come from established WASP families with rich, well-educated backgrounds. Indeed they closely resembled the overall national population of adult men, with fewer from the South and from farm backgrounds. The union leaders were heavily Democratic The newer CIO had a younger leadership, and one more involved with third parties, and less involved with local civic activities. Otherwise the AFL and CIO leaders were quite similar in background.[102]

Walter Reuther and UAW

The Flint Sit-Down Strike of 1936–37 was the decisive event in the formation of the United Auto Workers Union (UAW). During the war Walter Reuther took control of the UAW, and soon led major strikes in 1946. He ousted the Communists from the positions of power, especially at the Ford local.

He was one of the most articulate and energetic leaders of the CIO, and of the merged AFL-CIO. Using brilliant negotiating tactics he leveraged high profits for the Big Three automakers into higher wages and superior benefits for UAW members.

PAC and politics of 1940s

New enemies appeared for the labor unions after 1935. Newspaper columnist Westbrook Pegler was especially outraged by the New Deal's support for powerful labor unions that he considered morally and politically corrupt. Pegler saw himself a populist and muckraker whose mission was to warn the nation that dangerous leaders were in power. In 1941 Pegler became the first columnist ever to win a Pulitzer Prize for reporting, for his work in exposing racketeering in Hollywood labor unions, focusing on the criminal career of William Morris Bioff. Pegler's popularity reflected a loss of support for unions and liberalism generally, especially as shown by the dramatic Republican gains in the 1946 elections, often using an anti-union theme.[103]

With the end of the war in August 1945 came a wave of major strikes, mostly led by the CIO. In November, the UAW sent their 180,000 GM workers to the picket lines; they were joined in January 1946 by a half-million steelworkers, as well as over 200,000 electrical workers and 150,000 packinghouse workers. Combined with many smaller strikes a new record of strike activity was set.[104]

The results were mixed, with the unions making some gains, but the economy was disordered by the rapid termination of war contracts, the complex reconversion to peactime production, the return to the labor force of 12 million servicemen, and the return home of millions of women workers. The conservative control of Congress blocked liberal legislation, and "Operation Dixie", the CIO's efforts to expand massively into the South, failed.[105]

Taft-Hartley Act

The Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 revised the Wagner Act to include restrictions on unions as well as management. It was a response to public demands for action after the wartime coal strikes and the postwar strikes in steel, autos and other industries that were perceived to have damaged the economy, as well as a threatened 1946 railroad strike that was called off at the last minute before it shut down the national economy. The Act was bitterly fought by unions, vetoed by President Harry S. Truman, and passed over his veto. Repeated union efforts to repeal or modify it always failed, and it remains in effect today.

The Act, officially known as the Labor-Management Relations Act, was sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred Hartley, both Republicans. Congress overrode the veto on June 23, 1947, establishing the act as a law. Truman described the act as a "slave-labor bill" in his veto, but he did invoke it.

The Taft-Hartley Act amended the Wagner Act, officially known as the National Labor Relations Act, of 1935. The amendments added to the NLRA a list of prohibited actions, or "unfair labor practices", on the part of unions. The NLRA had previously prohibited only unfair labor practices committed by employers. It prohibited jurisdictional strikes, in which a union strikes in order to pressure an employer to assign particular work to the employees that union represents, and secondary boycotts and "common situs" picketing, in which unions picket, strike, or refuse to handle the goods of a business with which they have no primary dispute but which is associated with a targeted business. A later statute, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, passed in 1959, tightened these restrictions on secondary boycotts still further.

The Act outlawed closed shops, which were contractual agreements that required an employer to hire only union members. Union shops, in which new recruits must join the union within a certain amount of time, are permitted, but only as part of a collective bargaining agreement and only if the contract allows the worker at least thirty days after the date of hire or the effective date of the contract to join the union. The National Labor Relations Board and the courts have added other restrictions on the power of unions to enforce union security clauses and have required them to make extensive financial disclosures to all members as part of their duty of fair representation. On the other hand, a few years after the passage of the Act Congress repealed the provisions requiring a vote by workers to authorize a union shop, when it became apparent that workers were approving them in virtually every case.

The amendments also authorized individual states to outlaw union security clauses entirely in their jurisdictions by passing "right-to-work" laws. Currently all of the states in the Deep South and a number of traditionally Republican states in the Midwest, Plains and Rocky Mountains regions have right-to-work laws.

The amendments required unions and employers to give sixty days' notice before they may undertake strikes or other forms of economic action in pursuit of a new collective bargaining agreement; it did not, on the other hand, impose any "cooling-off period" after a contract expired. Although the Act also authorized the President to intervene in strikes or potential strikes that create a national emergency, the President has used that power less and less frequently in each succeeding decade.

Fighting Communism worldwide

The AFL had always opposed Communists inside the labor movement. After 1945 they took their crusade worldwide. The CIO had major Communist elements who played a key role in organizational work in the late 1930s and war years. By 1949 they were purged. The AFL and CIO strongly supported the Cold War policies of the Truman administration, including the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and NATO. Left wing elements in the CIO protested and were forced out of the main unions. Thus Walter Reuther of the United Automobile Workers purged the UAW of all Communist elements. He was active in the CIO umbrella as well, taking the lead in expelling eleven Communist-dominated unions from the CIO in 1949.[106]

As a leader of the anti-Communist center-left, Reuther was a founder of the liberal umbrella group Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. In 1949 he led the CIO delegation to the London conference that set up the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in opposition to the communist-dominated World Federation of Trade Unions. He had left the Socialist Party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic Party.[107] James B. Carey also helped influence the CIO’s pullout from the WFTU and the formation of the ICFTU dedicated to promoting free trade and democratic unionism worldwide. Carey in 1949 had formed the IUE, a new CIO union for electrical workers, because the old one, the UE, was tightly controlled by the left.[108]

Labor history since 1955

Since the middle of the 20th century, the American labor movement has been in steady decline. In the early 1950s, around a third of the United States' total labor force was unionized; by 2012, the proportion was 10%, falling to 5% for the private sector. Over the last few decades, unions' influence has waned and workers' collective voice in the political process has weakened. Partly as a result, wages have stagnated and income inequality has increased."[109]

AFL and CIO merger 1955

The friendly merger of the AFL and CIO marked an end not only to the acrimony and jurisdictional conflicts between the coalitions, it also signaled the end of the era of experimentation and expansion that began in the mid 1930s. Merger became politically possible because of the deaths of Green of the AFL and Murray of the CIO in late 1952, replaced by George Meany and Reuther. The CIO was no longer the radical dynamo, and was no longer a threat in terms of membership for the AFL had twice as many members.[110]

Furthermore, the AFL was doing a better job of expanding into the fast-growing white collar sector, with its organizations of clerks, public employees, teachers, and service workers. Although the AFL building trades maintained all-white policies, the AFL had more black members in all as the CIO. The problem of union corruption was growing in public awareness, and CIO's industrial unions were less vulnerable to penetration by criminal elements than were the AFL's trucking, longshoring, building, and entertainment unions. But Meany had a strong record in fighting corruption in New York unions, and was highly critical of the notoriously corrupt Teamsters.[111]

Unification would help the central organization fight corruption, yet would not contaminate the CIO unions. The defeat of the New Deal in the 1952 election further emphasized the need for unity to maximize political effectiveness. From the CIO side the merger was promoted by David McDonald of the Steelworkers and his top aide Arthur J. Goldberg. To achieve the successful merger they jettisoned the more liberal policies of the CIO regarding civil rights and membership rights for blacks, jurisdictional disputes, and industrial unionism. Reuther went along with the compromises did not contest the selection of Meany to head the AFL-CIO.[112]

Teamsters and corruption

The Teamsters union was expelled from the AFL for its notorious corruption under president Dave Beck. Its troubles gained national attention from highly visible Senate hearings led by Robert Kennedy in the late 1950s.[113] The target was Jimmy Hoffa, (1913–1975), who replaced Beck and held total power until he was imprisoned in 1964.[114]

For Republicans in the 1950s the campaign against labor racketeering offered a chance to peel the working-class vote away from the Democratic Party by politically dividing union members from their leadership. The culmination of this trend came in the late 1950s during the McClellan Committee hearings, which was the largest congressional investigation up to that time. Those hearings transformed Teamsters president Hoffa into a potent symbol of the danger posed by labor racketeering. The committee's revelations and the publicity they received undercut the labor movement. Polls showed growing public skepticism toward unions, and especially union leaders. Such attitudes helped conservatives win a new round of legislative restrictions on organized labor in the form of the Landrum-Griffin Act (1959).[115]

Civil Rights Movement

The UAW under Reuther played a major role in funding and supporting the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s.[116]

United Farm Workers

Hispanics comprise a large fraction of the farm labor force, but there was little successful unionization before the arrival in the 1960s of Cesar Chavez (1927–1993), who mobilized California workers into the United Farm Workers organization.[117]

Successes of the UFW include: (1.) securing a three-year contract with grape growers; (2.) securing another 3-year contract with Minute Maid for 55,000 workers; (3.) securing, with political allies, as the result of continuing strikes, an Agricultural Relations Board, after much conflict and union-busting by the Teamsters in the mid-1970s; and (4.) maintaining the ability to invoke consumer boycotts.[118] Chavez had a significant political impact; as Jenkins points out, "state and national elites no longer automatically sided with the growers." Thus, the political insurgency of the UFW was successful because of effective strategizing in the right kind of political environment.[119]

Nationwide unions have been seeking opportunities to enroll Hispanic members. Much of their limited success has been in the hotel industry.[120]

Reagan and unions

Most unions were strongly opposed to Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. On August 3, 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) union—which had supported Reagan—rejected the government's pay raise offer and sent its 16,000 members out on strike to shut down the nation's commercial airlines. They demanded a reduction in the workweek to 32 from 40 hours, doubling of wages, a $10,000 bonus and early retirement.[121]

Federal law forbade such a strike, and the Transportation department implemented a backup plan (of supervisors and military air controllers) to keep the system running. The strikers were given 48 hours to return to work, else they would be fired and banned from ever again working in a Federal capacity. A fourth of the strikers came back to work, but 13,000 did not. The strike collapsed, PATCO vanished, and the union movement as a whole suffered a major reversal, which accelerated the decline of membership across the board in the private sector.[122]

Unions suffered a continual decline of power during the Reagan administration, with a concomitant effect on wages. The average first-year raise (for 1000-plus–worker contracts) fell from 9.8% to 1.2%; in manufacturing, raises fell from 7.2% to negative 1.2%. Salaries of unionized workers also fell relative to non-union workers. Women and blacks suffered more from these trends.[123]

Decline of private sector unions

By 2011 fewer than 7% of employees in the private sector belonged to unions. The UAW's numbers of automobile union members are representative of the manufacturing sector: 1,619,000 active members in 1970, 1,446,000 in 1980, 952,000 in 1990, 623,000 in 2004, and 377,000 in 2010 (with far more retired than active members).[124]

Rise of public sector unions

The first strikes by government employees took place in the 1830s, but the unions generally bypassed government employees because they were controlled mostly by the patronage system before the arrival of civil service. After the fiasco of the Boston Police Strike in 1919, which was suppressed by Governor Calvin Coolidge, and the opposition of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to government labor unions, unionization remained uncommon among government employees. The Wagner Act of 1935, and subsequent legislation, applied only to employees in the private sector, since the federal government could not interfere in state government.[125] The major exception was the emergence starting in the 1920s of unions of public school teachers in the largest cities; they formed the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). In suburbs and small cities, the National Education Association (NEA) became active, but it insisted it was not a labor union but a professional organization.[126]

Change came in the 1950s. In 1958 New York mayor Robert Wagner, Jr. issued an executive order, called "the little Wagner Act", giving city employees certain bargaining rights, and gave their unions with exclusive representation (that is, the unions alone were legally authorized to speak for all city workers, regardless of whether or some workers were members.) Wisconsin, New York, and other states saw the emergence of public-sector unions, including teachers, clerks, firemen, prison guards and others. At the federal level President John Kennedy, a Democrat, in 1962 issued Executive Order 10988, upgrading the status of unions of federal workers.[127]

After 1960 public sector unions grew rapidly and secured good wages and high pensions for their members. While manufacturing and farming steadily declined, state- and local-government employment quadrupled from 4 million workers in 1950 to 12 million in 1976 and 16.6 million in 2009.[128] Adding in the 3.7 million federal civilian employees, in 2010 8.4 million government workers were represented by unions,[129] including 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers and 46% of local workers.[130] As Daniel Disalvo notes, "In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors."[131]

In 2011 as states faced a growing fiscal crisis and the Republicans made major gains in the 2010 elections, public sector unions came under heavy attack in Wisconsin, Indiana, New Jersey and Ohio from conservative Republican legislatures.[132]

NAFTA and threat of international trade

The situation for the automotive industry and UAW members worsened dramatically in 1973. Gasoline prices shot up and, worse, Volkswagen and Honda started flooding the American market. For the first time major American industries had foreign competition for the domestic market. This started years of layoffs and plant closings. Entire industries, such as textiles, shoes, and consumer electronics shriveled up as imports soared, especially from Japan and China.[133][134]

In autos, the UAW to keep jobs had to give up some benefits it had won over the decades. By 2005 the total labor costs per employee had reached $65 per hour at GM, so in November 2005 it announced it would shut down more plants, costing 40,000 unionized jobs. The crisis was prefigured by the near-bankruptcy of Chrysler in 1979—it was rescued by government loans—and the actual bankruptcy of Delphi (formerly part of GM) in 2005. The bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler in 2009 indicated a much smaller and leaner industry, as the government took effective ownership of the two. The UAW was able to salvage much of the retirement benefits for retired members, as the active membership continued to shrink and received lower pay and benefits.[135][136]

Female membership in labor unions

As the manufacturing industries that have constituted the strength of the American Labor Movement declined, such as the steel and auto industries, the rise of the service sector began to see major growth. Some white-collar jobs in the service sector include clerical workers, nurses, social workers, and teachers, and are often filled by women workers. Traditionally, women had been under-represented in union organizing due to the belief that "it was a woman's 'nature' to be a loyal 'office wife'" and to not show disloyalty by joining a union.[137] Also, it was commonly held that women would not remain in the work force long and would return to their "proper place" in the home upon being married.[138]

Therefore, efforts to mobilize women in unions was considered a poor use of resources. As the industrial sector began to decline more attention has turned to organizing women in white-collar service jobs, or what has been called the pink-collar sector. The Teamsters have increased female membership, as have the United Auto Workers and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union. The increased membership of women has also shed new light on gender issues, with family issues and other women's concerns gaining more legitimacy in the work place.[139]

While the number of women working outside the home has been on the rise, women still retain most of the family and home responsibilities with husbands contributing little to household chores.[140] As a result, unions with large female memberships have begun to include family issues in bargaining, such as maternity leave.

See also

History:

General:

Notes

  1. ^ E. J. Dionne, "When unions mattered, prosperity was shared", Washington Post Sept. 6, 2010
  2. ^ Archer 2007, p. 1.
  3. ^ Alice Kessler-Harris, Out to work : a history of America's wage-earning women in the United States, Oxford University Press, 1982, pg 82
  4. ^ Commons, ii-iii
  5. ^ Commons, ii-iii
  6. ^ Commons, ii-iii
  7. ^ Commons, ii-iii
  8. ^ Tomlins, 111
  9. ^ Tomlins, 112
  10. ^ Tomlins, 112
  11. ^ Tomlins, 111
  12. ^ Tomlins, 111
  13. ^ Tomlins, 128
  14. ^ Commons, viii
  15. ^ Tomlins, 133
  16. ^ Lloyd, 107-24
  17. ^ Lloyd, 107-24
  18. ^ Tomlins, 133
  19. ^ Commons, iv
  20. ^ Commons, iv
  21. ^ Levy, 183
  22. ^ Levy, 183
  23. ^ Witte, 825
  24. ^ Witte, 825
  25. ^ Witte, 825
  26. ^ Witte, 825
  27. ^ Tomlins, 139
  28. ^ Tomlins, 140
  29. ^ Shaler, 24
  30. ^ Tomlins, 146
  31. ^ Tomlins, 146
  32. ^ Tomlins, 147
  33. ^ Witte, 827
  34. ^ Alice Henry, The Trade Union Woman, Lenox Hill pub. & Dist. Co. (reprint), pp. 4, 12
  35. ^ Kessler-Harris, Out to Work, pp. 85–6
  36. ^ John P. Hall, "The Knights of St. Crispin in Massachusetts, 1869-1878," Journal of Economic History 18 (June 1958), 161-175. in JSTOR
  37. ^ Walter Licht, Working for the Railroad: The Organization of Work in the Nineteenth Century (1983) pp. 264–68
  38. ^ In 1969, all except the BLE joined with the Switchmen's Union to become the United Transportation Union (UTU). In 2004 the BLE joined the Teamsters.
  39. ^ James H. Ducker, Men of the Steel Rails: Workers on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe railroad, 1869–1900 (1983) pp. 41–42, 108–16, 134–38
  40. ^ Paul Michel Taillon, Good, Reliable, White Men: Railroad Brotherhoods, 1877–1917 (University of Illinois Press, 2009).
  41. ^ Robert E. Weir, Beyond Labor's Veil: The Culture of the Knights of Labor (1996)
  42. ^ Robert E. Weir, Beyond Labor's Veil: The Culture of the Knights of Labor (1996)
  43. ^ Theresa Ann Case, The Great Southwest Railroad Strike and Free Labor (2010) pp. 1–2
  44. ^ James R. Green, Death in the Haymarket: A Story of Chicago, the First Labor Movement and the Bombing that Divided Gilded Age America (2007)
  45. ^ Glen A. Gildemeister, "The Founding of the American Federation of Labor," Labor History, Spring 1981, Vol. 22 Issue 2, pp 262-70
  46. ^ Alice Kessler-Harris, Gendering Labor History (2007), pp. 24, 27, 29
  47. ^ J. Anthony Lukas, Big Trouble: A Murder in a Small Western Town Sets off a Struggle for the Soul of America (1997)
  48. ^ Anthony Lukas, Big Trouble, 1997, p. 310; Almont Lindsey, The Pullman Strike: The Story of a Unique Experiment and of a Great Labor Upheaval (1943)
  49. ^ Lindsey, The Pullman Strike; Lukas, Big Trouble pp. 310–311.
  50. ^ Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States (1976) series D591-D592
  51. ^ Robert H. Wiebe, "The Anthracite Strike of 1902: A Record of Confusion," Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 48, No. 2 (September 1961), pp. 229-251 in JSTOR
  52. ^ Kessler-Harris, Gendering, pg 33
  53. ^ Henry, Trade Union Woman, pg 62–3
  54. ^ Joseph A. McCartin, et al., "Power, politics, and 'pessimism of the intelligence'", Labor History, August 1999, Vol. 40 Issue 3, pp. 345+, an evaluation of the standard history by Melvyn Dubofsky, We Shall Be All: A History of the IWW, The Industrial Workers of the World (1969)
  55. ^ Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States, Vol. 4, The Industrial Workers of the World 1905–1917, International Publishers, 1997, p. 166
  56. ^ Henry E. McGuckin, Memoirs of a Wobbly, Charles H. Kerr Publishing Company, 1987, p. 70.
  57. ^ Paul Frederick Brissenden, Columbia university, 1920, p. 350 (200,000 membership cards).
  58. ^ Colin J. Davis, Power at Odds: The 1922 National Railroad Shopmen's Strike (1997)
  59. ^ Colin J. Davis, Power at Odds: The 1922 National Railroad Shopmen's Strike (1997)
  60. ^ Philip Taft, The A.F.L. in the time of Gompers (1957)
  61. ^ Philip S. Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the United States Volume 8: Postwar Struggles 1918–1920 New York: International Publishers Co., 1988. p. 88
  62. ^ Foner 1988, p. 92
  63. ^ Stanley Coben (1972). A. Mitchell Palmer: politician. Da Capo Press. pp. 176–83. http://books.google.com/books?id=610qAAAAYAAJ.
  64. ^ Robert K. Murray, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920 p 155
  65. ^ Irwin Marcus, Eileen Cooper and Beth O'Leary, "The Coal Strike of 1919 in Indiana County," Pennsylvania History (1989) 56#3 pp. 177-195 in JSTOR. Indiana County is a coal mining district in the state of Pennsylvania.
  66. ^ Coben, 181–3; New York Times: "Miners Finally Agree", December 11, 1919. Retrieved January 26, 2010.
  67. ^ Robert Zieger, American Workers, American Unions (1994) p. 5.
  68. ^ Sloane, Arthur, and Robert Witney: Labor Relations, p. 70. Prentice Hall, 1997.
  69. ^ Zieger, Robert: American Workers, American Unions, p. 6. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
  70. ^ Sloane, Arthur, and Fred Witney: Labor Relations, p. 71. Prentice Hall, 1997.
  71. ^ a b c Wright, Russell O: Chronology of Labor in the United States, p. 51. McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers, 2003.
  72. ^ Sloane, Arthur, and Fred Witney: Labor Relations, p. 70. Prentice Hall, 1997.
  73. ^ a b Smith, Sharon: Subterranean Fire, p. 97. Haymarket Books, 2006.
  74. ^ Zieger, Robert: American Workers, American Unions, p. 11. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
  75. ^ Smith, Sharon: Subterranean Fire, p. 72. Haymarket Books, 2006.
  76. ^ Zieger, Robert: American Workers, American Unions, p. 15. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
  77. ^ Zieger, Robert: American Workers, American Unions, p. 19. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
  78. ^ Zieger, Robert: American Workers, American Unions, p. 19. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
  79. ^ a b c d Cohen, Sanford: Labor in the United States, p. 76. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1979.
  80. ^ Smith, Sharon: Subterranean Fire, p. 103. Haymarket Books, 2006.
  81. ^ Sloane, Arthur, and Robert Witney: Labor Relations, p. 72. Prentice Hall, 1997.
  82. ^ Wright, Russell O: Chronology of Labor in the United States, p. 52. McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers, 2003.
  83. ^ a b Smith, Sharon: Subterranean Fire, p. 104. Haymarket Books, 2006.
  84. ^ Milton, David: The Politics of U.S. Labor, p. 30. Monthly Review Press, 1982.
  85. ^ Wright, Russell O: Chronology of Labor in the United States, p. 53. McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers, 2003.
  86. ^ Milton, David: The Politics of U.S. Labor, p. 31. Monthly Review Press, 1982.
  87. ^ Smith, Sharon: Subterranean Fire, p. 107. Haymarket Books, 2006.
  88. ^ Milton, David: The Politics of U.S. Labor, p. 32. Monthly Review Press, 1982.
  89. ^ Cole, Harold and Lee Ohanian. (2004) "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis". Journal of Political Economy, 112(4).
  90. ^ Philip Taft, The A. F. of L. from the Death of Gompers to the Merger (1959) pp. 86–93, 199
  91. ^ Robert H. Zieger, The CIO, 1935–1955 (1997) pp. 90–110
  92. ^ Robert H. Zieger, The CIO, 1935-1955 (1997)
  93. ^ Melvyn Dubofsky and Warren R. Van Tine, John L. Lewis: a biography (1986)
  94. ^ Sidney Fine, "The General Motors Sit-Down Strike: A Re-examination," American Historical Review (1965) 70#3 pp. 691-713 in JSTOR
  95. ^ George Gallup, "Testing Public Opinion," Public Opinion Quarterly (1938) 3#1 pp. 8-14 in JSTOR
  96. ^ Walter Galenson, The CIO challenge to the AFL (1960) p. 585
  97. ^ Bernard Sternsher, "Great Depression Labor Historiography in the 1970s: Middle-Range Questions, Ethnocultures, and Levels of Generalization," Reviews in American History (1983) 11#2 pp. 300-319 in JSTOR
  98. ^ David Brody, "Labor and the Great Depression: The Interpretive Prospects," Labor History (1972) 13#2 pp 231-44.
  99. ^ Steve Fraser, "The 'Labor Question,'" in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930-1980, ed. Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle (1989), 55-84 online
  100. ^ Andrew Kersten, Labor's Home Front: The American Federation of Labor during World War II (2009); Nelson Lichtenstein, Labor's War at Home: The CIO in World War II (1982)
  101. ^ Melvyn Dubofsky and Warren Van Tine. John L. Lewis: A Biography (1986) ch 18–19; poll data from Hadley Cantril, Public Opinion (1947) p. 561
  102. ^ Walter Licht and Hal Seth Barron, "Labor's Men: A Collective Biography of Union Officialdom during the New Deal Years," Labor History (1978) 19#4 pp 532-45
  103. ^ Susan Hartman, Truman and the 80th Congress (1971)
  104. ^ Ziegler, CIO pp. 212–13; Barbara S. Griffith, The Crisis of American Labor: Operation Dixie and the Defeat of the CIO (1988).
  105. ^ Ziegler, CIO pp. 212–13; Barbara S. Griffith, The Crisis of American Labor: Operation Dixie and the Defeat of the CIO (1988).
  106. ^ Harvey A. Levenstein, Communism, Anticommunism, and the CIO (1981)
  107. ^ Nelson Lichtenstein, The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter Reuther and the Fate of American Labor (1995)
  108. ^ James H. Moore (2010). Times Long Past. Xlibris Corporation. p. 35. http://books.google.com/books?id=r3SOS2UphgsC&pg=PA35.
  109. ^ Western, Bruce; Rosenfeld, Jake (2012). "Workers of the World Divide". Foreign Affairs 91 (3). http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137522/bruce-western-and-jake-rosenfeld/workers-of-the-world-divide. Retrieved 10 June 2012.
  110. ^ Zieger, CIO p. 357–69
  111. ^ Zieger, CIO p. 357–69
  112. ^ Zieger, CIO p. 357–69
  113. ^ David Witwer, Corruption and reform in the Teamsters Union (2003)
  114. ^ Hoffa disappeared in 1975, presumably murdered. His son James P. Hoffa (born 1941) was elected president of the cleaned-up union in 1999, and twice reelected in fair elections.
  115. ^ David Witwer, The Racketeer Menace and Antiunionism in the Mid-twentieth Century US, International Labor and Working-class History 2008 (74): 124–147,
  116. ^ Kevin Boyle, The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism, 1945–1968, (1995), ch. 7.
  117. ^ Stephen H. Sosnick, Hired Hands: Seasonal Farm Workers In The United States (1978) pp. 301, 302
  118. ^ Paul F. Taylor, The ABC-CLIO Companion To The American Labor Movement, (1993) pp. 28, 29, 194, 195.
  119. ^ J. Craig Jenkins, The Politics Of Insurgency: The Farm worker Movement In The 1960s (1985) pp. 209, 228.
  120. ^ Jake Rosenfeld and Meredith Kleykamp, "Hispanics and Organized Labor in the United States, 1973 to 2007," American Sociological Review 74 (December 2009) 916-37
  121. ^ Herbert R. Northrup, "The Rise and Demise of PATCO", Industrial and Labor Relations Review; 1984 37(2): 167–184
  122. ^ Herbert R. Northrup, "The Rise and Demise of PATCO", Industrial and Labor Relations Review; 1984 37(2): 167–184
  123. ^ Moody, Kim (1988). An injury to all : the decline of American Unionism. London: Verso. ISBN 0860919293.
  124. ^ David Shepardson, "UAW membership up 6 percent", Detroit News April 1, 2011
  125. ^ Richard C. Kearney and David G. Carnevale, Labor relations in the public sector (2001) pp. 1–22
  126. ^ Marjorie Murphy, Blackboard Unions: The AFT and the NEA, 1900–1980 (1992)
  127. ^ David Schultz, Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (2004) p. 143
  128. ^ U.S. Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Reports State and Local Government Employment Remains at 16.6 Million" (press release Aug. 10, 2010)
  129. ^ This includes some people who are covered by union contracts but are not themselves members.
  130. ^ Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Table 3. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by occupation and industry"
  131. ^ Daniel Disalvo, "The Trouble with Public Sector Unions", National Affairs" (issue 5 Fall 2010)
  132. ^ John Logan, "Is this the end for organised labour in the US?", guardian.co.uk, March 11, 2011
  133. ^ Norman Caulfield, NAFTA and Labor in North America (2009) p 114
  134. ^ Judith Stein, Pivotal decade: how the United States traded factories for finance in the seventies (2010)
  135. ^ Micheline Maynard, "Union Takes Rare Front Seat in Deal for Chrysler", New York Times May 1, 2009 online
  136. ^ Paul Ingrassia, Crash course: the American automobile industry's road from glory to disaster (2010)
  137. ^ Blum 1991, p. 9
  138. ^ Cook, Alice. "Comments". Women and Unions: Forging a Partnership. Ed. Dorothy Sue Cobble. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1993.p. 148
  139. ^ Blum, Linda. Between Feminism and Labor : The Significance of the Comparable Worth Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.pg 8–11
  140. ^ Cook 1993, p.151

References

Surveys
Specialized studies
Primary sources

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Trade unionism of the United States