Open World Conference of Workers

1) Why Trade Unionists Must Oppose Government Intervention and Control of Unions - a contribution to the OWC discussion by Jerry Gordon (Cleveland, Ohio)

[Note: Following is a contribution to the OWC discussion submitted by Jerry Gordon, a retired trade unionist living in Cleveland, Ohio. Brother Gordon delivered a keynote address to the February 13 plenary session of the OWC in defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal's right to a new trial.]

In the United States - as in all countries around the world - it is important for trade unionists to take a firm stand against government intervention and control of unions. In the case of the United States this means opposing government strikebreaking, government union-busting, punitive legislation, control over unions' basic functions at the expense of members' democratic lights, government dictating who may and may not run for union office, and so on. The stakes in the struggle to curb such governmental actions could not be higher, since they jeopardize the very survival of the labor movement as an independent and democratic force.

The key to opposing government intervention and control of unions is the understanding that government is no neutral or impartial third party in the conflict between capital and labor. Whatever the appearance or rhetoric may be to the contrary, government is the agent of the big banks and corporations. It represents their interests, not the interests of working people.

In this brief space, I would like to highlight the relationship between government and the unions in the United States over the past 50 years, provide a brief historical sketch of what that relationship has been, and then respond to some arguments that have been advanced in support of government intervention into unions' internal affairs.

With respect to the past 50 years, here is what government has done to unions in this country:

1947: Taft-Hartley Act

This piece of legislation, far worse than any other, has truly shackled the labor movement. Among other things, it

- in effect, banned mass picketing to stop production and distribution of scab products

- barred secondary picketing and boycotts

- outlawed the closed shop

- authorized states to make union-shop agreements illegal

- allowed companies to file damage suits against unions

- barred contributions by unions to candidates for federal office.

No wonder this act was called the "slave labor bill" by unions at that time. Yet, Taft-Hartley was approved by a big bipartisan majority. Of course, the Republicans voted for it overwhelmingly. Democrats in the House of Representatives voted "Yes" for Taft-Hartley by a 103-66 vote and in the Senate by a 17-15 vote. [See more complete article on Taft-Hartley Act below.]

1959: Landrum-Griffin

This law tightened Taft-Hartley restrictions on labor's rights and added others. For example, it prohibited unions from negotiating "hot cargo" agreements, thus forcing union workers to handle and process scab products from other workplaces on strike or face discharge.

The law had two other purposes. It was intended to give the government oversight and scrutiny over how unions spend their money and it prescribed how unions are to conduct their internal elections.

With regard to the latter, if you are convicted of any of 12 felonies listed in Landrum-Griffin, you can be disqualified from running for union office for up to 13 years. One of these felonies is "assault which inflicts grievous bodily Injury." Thus, if a militant worker defends a picket line against scabs, goons and cops, he or she could be set up for a felony conviction and barred from running for office - even if every member of the union would have voted to elect that person.

1970: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

This is another powerful weapon government has used to go after unions. The law was supposedly designed to get the racketeers. But the government said that since racketeers control some unions, union members are subject to its conspiracy provisions. RICO casts a wide net that can snarl almost any union activist.

1981: PATCO

This was government strikebreaking and union-busting at its classical worst. The Carter administration drew up the plans to crush the air traffic controllers' union if the workers struck, and Reagan implemented those plans, sending PATCO leaders to jail in chains and wiping their union off the face of the map.

1991 and 1992: Congressional legislation breaking rail workers' strikes and sending the workers back to the job on the employers' terms.

This was also bipartisan governmental action against the unions, with the 1991 vote nearly unanimous and the 1992 vote totally unanimous.

1995: Detroit Newspaper Strike

The workers had Gannett and Knight-Ridder on the run, with mass picket lines preventing distribution of the scab papers by keeping the trucks from getting out. A state judge issued an injunction reducing pickets to token numbers and enabling the publishers to freely distribute their papers. It was a crushing blow to the strike.

1998: Ron Carey disqualified by the government from running for Teamsters International president in the rerun election scheduled in late 1998. This action was taken without any semblance of due process. It was a flagrant violation of the workers' right to decide for themselves who would serve them as Teamsters international president. Carey, like all union leaders, is accountable to the membership, and the membership - not the bosses' government - should decide who will be their officers.

The above list of government attacks against unions is just a partial one. But it lays bare the class bias of the government and shows its true face as the agent of big business. So, when people say government intervention into the internal affairs of unions is a good thing, remind them of these events of the past 50 years.

Government Intervention in Earlier Labor Battles

Of course, government attacks on unions did not begin with Taft-Hartley. Government intervention and control over unions is as old as the labor movement itself. From the beginning, unions had to deal with injunctions and the courts - judge made law at the request of the bosses.

Unions fought on two fronts: against the employers and against the government. It soon became evident that it was one and the same fight.

All the employers had to claim was that some union strike or activity threatened their property or business and an injunction would be issued, sometimes without the court even hearing arguments by the union. Injunctions were issued indiscriminately against strikes, picketing, "peaceful picketing," preventing others from working, organizing, boycotting, and even holding meetings.

There were two historic events that drove home with a vengeance how government served the employers. The first was the Pullman Strike of 1884, conducted by the American Railway Union (ARU) led by Eugene V. Debs. As soon as the strike began in Illinois, the company started hiring scabs. Then Pullman went to court and got one of the most sweeping injunctions ever issued. If obeyed, the union could not have carried out even the most minimal strike activity. The union defied the injunction but continued to conduct the strike peacefully. Despite this, President Grover Cleveland sent in 11,000 troops. (This was illegal - under the Constitution, troops can be sent in to a state only when requested by the state legislature or the governor. There was no such request here.) The troops were joined by 2,600 deputies, armed and paid for by Pullman. This combined force attacked the strikers, killing 25 workers and injuring 60.

Debs urged a general strike, a proposal enthusiastically backed by Chicago unions. Samuel Gompers, president of the AFL, hurried to Chicago, convened a meeting of the AFL Executive Council, and secured a unanimous vote against a general strike. That did it for the ARU strike. The strike was destroyed and the union's leaders were jailed. The ARO never recovered from the defeat.

After Pullman, injunctions against unions were issued in even greater numbers by both federal and state judges. No union was immune. It was an across-the-board governmental offensive against the entire labor movement, threatening it with extinction. At the turn of the century, the AFL made enactment of an anti-injunction law by Congress its number one priority. Then came the 1906 Buck's Stove and Range strike in St. Louis, with Gompers himself targeted by the government for his actions in support of the strikers.

Buck's Stove workers were represented by the Metal Polishers Union. The company decided to break the union and provoked a strike. The union called a boycott, which proved to be effective. The company got an injunction prohibiting the boycott and other strike activity. The AFL was ordered not to print the words "We Don't Patronize" regarding Buck's Stove in its publication, The Federationist. Gompers spoke out against this censorship and voiced his support of the boycott. Editorials in The Federationist did the same. As a result, Gompers and other AFL leaders were cited for contempt of court. Gompers was sentenced to a year in jail. (His cardinal offense was sending out a letter asking for contributions to help defray legal costs.)

All of this prompted outrage not only among union members but among other people in the United States concerned about the attacks on free speech and freedom of the press. A broad united front against government repression then developed.

These events, starting with the 1894 Pullman Strike, helped cement what became a strongly held position within the labor movement - opposition to government strikebreaking, union-busting and denial of union members' democratic rights. What we say today is that that position must be maintained and strengthened because it is progressive and in the interests of the working class.

Incidentally, the attacks against labor by the government have historically deepened support within the labor movement for the formation of a labor party. In fact, in the early 1900s, the AFL was inundated with resolutions, letters and calls urging it to break with the two major parties and start one that would speak for working people. For example, in 1908, a Chicago local union wrote Gompers:

"Do any of the old parties care for the labor class? No, with a capital N. Mr. Gompers, don't you think it is time you quit dabbling with the old political parties and support the only means by which laboring men can elect our own representatives, as the capitalists do theirs now - a party of the laboring people? Let's stop working for those who promise to get our votes and as soon as elected will drop us like hot cakes and enact laws by which we can be pushed further down than we are now. Have not the events since 1906 taught you anything?"

Gompers said, "If I tried for a whole day to describe the situation, I could not do it better." Still, Gompers remained adamantly opposed to independent labor political action and a break with the bosses' parties. His philosophy continued to be to work within the two-party system and "reward your friends and punish your enemies." He was an ultra-conservative union leader. We saw that when he abandoned the Pullman workers and when he kept unions chained to the bosses' parties. But, on the question of government intervention and control of unions, he was at one with other labor leaders and the rank and file. He opposed it.

Response to Some Arguments in Favor of Government Intervention

There are many within the union movement who argue that governmental intervention is needed in the unions in order to get rid of the bad guys.

Those who advance this argument often cite the experience of the Mine Workers and Teamsters which, they contend, proves their point.

Let's consider what happened with the Miners. In 1969, Tony Boyle and his goons were running the union. There was a growing rank-and-file movement demanding change and calling for an alternative leadership. Yablonski, a long-time top leader of the Miners (John L. Lewis once called him "my right hand man") gave voice to that reform movement and ran against Boyle for president. Boyle won the election but Yablonski went to the government, charging the election was rigged. While his claim was pending, Boyle had Yablonski assassinated, along with his wife and daughter. It was on the day of Yablonski's funeral that Miners for Democracy was founded.

The court ultimately threw out the 1969 election and in the re-run in1972, Arnold Miller defeated Boyle (who was later convicted of the Yablonski murder and jailed). Later, Rich Trumka was elected president and, when he became AFL-ClO secretary-treasurer, he was succeeded by Cecil Roberts.

The Miners today are a far more democratic union than they were In the days of Tony Boyle. Who gets credit for that? The rank-and-file reform forces and all who risked their necks and - in the case of Yablonski - gave their lives to change the union.

It is wrong to give the government any credit whatever for its role. Does anyone think that if the government had not been called in, Tony Boyle and his ilk would be running the Miners union today?

Take the Teamsters' situation. There have been positive changes, due in large part to the rank and file having a direct vote in electing their International officers. Who gets credit for that? Not the government! In order to avoid RICO convictions and possible jail terms, the old guard gave the government supervisory control over the union and its elections. At this juncture, the reform forces, led by Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU), intervened to secure the popular election of officers. Giuliani, the prosecutor in charge of the case, did not "give" the vote to the membership. It was pried out of him by TDU, which utilized an opportunity that opened up for them. Since Giuliani was posturing as a champion of the members' democratic rights, he was hardly in a position to deny them the right to vote to elect their top officers.

But let's be clear about one thing: This was an incomplete and fragile victory. We saw that when the government canceled the results of the election, then disqualified one candidate while allowing the other - Hoffa - to be on the ballot for the re-run. Both should have been on the ballot, where the membership had placed them.

It is also important to point out that many unions - locals and even national unions - have been cleaned up without any government involvement. One such example is the Fur and Leather Workers, which the mob sought to control during the 1920s and 1930s. They were physically driven out by the membership, including the notorious Lepke-Gurrah gang.

Experience proves that when the government intervenes to deal with unions' internal problems, the union generally pays a heavy price. The members' democratic rights to run their own unions are necessarily circumscribed. And when the government gets in, how do you get them out?

Workers seeking to reform their unions cannot rely on the government - which represents the bosses' interests - to do it for them. Government intervention can never be a substitute for a strong rank-and-file movement when it comes to making fundamental changes. To think the government can ever be an ally of such a movement is an illusion.

On all questions involving going to the bosses' government to ask it to resolve an internal union problem, such as ordering a new election, it must be emphasized that such involvement may well jeopardize the independent functioning of the union by opening it up to ongoing and deepening government control.

Second, when government does something favorable for a union, we need to explain why. It may be a concession in the face of pressure, in which case the workers generating the pressure get the credit, not the government. It may be a gesture to make workers think the government is "fair" (after all, if all court and NLRB decisions were anti-labor, the game would be up and workers would see more clearly the need for a workers' government instead of the bosses' government we now have). Or it may be a bone thrown our way without really helping labor's cause at all. For example, the NLRB upheld many of the union's unfair labor practice charges against Caterpillar and issued nearly 500 complaints against the company. So what? The union suffered a severe setback in the strike, and all the complaints were withdrawn. So, how much help did the government give the union?

This issue should be a top priority for the labor movement. Labor's ability to survive as an independent, democratic movement is in jeopardy. Labor's space to function is constantly shrinking under a barrage of anti-labor laws, court decisions and government actions.

Because of that, a fightback movement has to be built against government intervention and control of unions, against government strikebreaking and union-busting, and against the government's denying union members the democratic right to run their own unions, including electing the officers of their choice.

********************

2) Document 1: The Taft-Hartley Act: Why the American Labor Movement Called it a "Slave Labor Bill" - by Jerry Gordon (Cleveland, Ohio)

On June 23, 1947, the U.S. Senate joined the House of Representatives in voting to override President Truman's veto of the Taft-Hartley Act and it became law, the most repressive piece of anti-labor legislation in this country's history.

The enactment of Taft-Hartley followed a tremendous post-World War II upsurge by union workers all across the country. During the war years, workers had experienced a drastic decline in their living standards as a result of a government-imposed wage freeze, despite steeply rising living costs. Moreover, workers had been subjected to long hours, intensified speed-up and poor working conditions. Meanwhile the corporations were making profits hand-over-fist. The end of the war in 1945 found workers determined to win wage increases and improve their conditions. A massive strike wave erupted and during 1945-46 over five million workers walked off their jobs in a whole range of industries including auto, steel and steel fabricating, packinghouse, electrical equipment, coal, rail, maritime, communications, machine tools and transit.

The ruling circles in the U.S. decided it was time to crack down on the labor movement and throttle the rising tide of discontent. The result was Taft-Hartley and it was passed by politicians from both the bosses' parties. The House vote was 331-83, with Democrats voting 106-71 in favor of the measure. The Senate passed the measure by a 68 to 25 margin, with 20 Democrats voting to override the veto and 22 voting to uphold it. Thus a majority of Democrats in Congress voted to join the Republicans in approving a measure the labor movement characterized as a "slave labor bill." As for Democratic president Truman, he did little or nothing to galvanize support for upholding his veto.

This paper will examine the major facets of Taft-Hartley and how this legislation undermined and weakened the labor movement, making it far more difficult to organize the unorganized and protect workers' living standards.

Injunctions to Break and Prevent Strikes

The original National Labor Relations Act, called the Wagner Act, was adopted by Congress in 1935. This law enumerated a number of employer unfair labor practices with nothing directed against labor organizations. The Taft-Hartley Act changed this with a number of Draconian unfair labor practices targeting unions and prohibiting them and their members from conduct that would  "threaten," "restrain," or "coerce" other employees and employers in the exercise of their rights.  Taft-Hartley thus made it far easier for courts to issue injunctions banning mass picketing during strikes and reducing the number of pickets to a token few. This, in turn, made it much easier for scabs and strike breakers to cross picket lines of striking workers.

The Act also empowered the President to set up a fact-finding board to inquire into any strike which the President deemed to affect the national health and safety. Upon receiving the board's report, the President can seek a federal court injunction to make the strike illegal for a "cooling off" period of 80 days.

Outlawing Secondary Strikes and Boycotts

Unions' strategy for winning strikes has historically been to cut off business of the struck employer by spreading the strike to that employer's suppliers and customers. Taft-Hartley largely put an end to that practice by prohibiting secondary strikes and boycotts.

Here's how it worked: Prior to Taft-Hartley, if a union struck the Heinz Ketchup Company and the Kroger supermarket chain insisted on continuing to sell the struck product, the union could picket Kroger stores and urge customers to shop elsewhere. Kroger employees might also decide to honor the picket lines and refuse to work. So as the price of continuing to sell Heinz Ketchup, Kroger could face a tremendous loss of profits and even have some of its operations shut down or at least curtailed. Faced with this, Kroger might have decided its best course was simply to sell other brands of ketchup, not the Heinz brand. This obviously was a powerful weapon helping the Heinz workers win their strike.

Taft-Hartley took away this weapon. It made secondary strikes and boycotts æ actions directed against suppliers and customers of a struck company æ illegal. So in the situation described above, a union that today goes on strike against Heinz Ketchup can request that Kroger not carry the Heinz product, but if Kroger persists in doing so, all the union can do is urge customers going into Kroger not to buy the struck product. The union cannot ask customers not to shop at Kroger, nor can it encourage any Kroger employee to stay off the job. Taft-Hartley has made this illegal.

Authorizing States to Outlaw Union Shop Agreements

Taft-Hartley also contained a misnamed "right-to-work" provision. This enables states to pass legislation prohibiting union shop agreements. Some 20 states, mostly in the South and West, have done precisely that.

A union shop agreement specifies that all workers in a workplace where the union has been voted in (or otherwise been recognized by the employer after demonstrating majority support) must belong to the union as a condition of employment. Under federal law, the union is required to represent all the workers in a given unit, so it is only fair and right that all employees in the workplace contribute to the cost of maintaining the union by paying union dues. After all, all workers in the unit receive the pay increases and benefit improvements negotiated by the union. And any worker can be fired unjustly resulting in the union filing a grievance and spending sometimes thousands of dollars from the union's treasury to win back that worker's job. Workers wishing to avail themselves of the union's grievance procedure should surely contribute to paying their fair share so that the union can protect the rights of all workers the costs.

But Taft-Hartley says a state can bar that. In "right-to-work" states, a worker can accept all the wage increases and benefit improvements negotiated by the union, as well utilize the union's grievance procedure, but never belong to the union or pay any dues toward its upkeep. This is simply another device imposed by government to divide workers and weaken the union.

Closed Shop Outlawed

Taft-Hartley also outlawed the closed shop. A closed shop agreement obligated an employer to hire only workers who are already union members. This was of particular importance to the building trades unions, which sought to ensure that all construction be done by union labor and that building trades workers receive good wages standardized throughout the industry. So under a closed shop, employers who needed workers got them through the union.

Taft-Hartley made that practice illegal. Union workers today are faced with the threat of non-union contractors who employ non-union workers at lower wages and less benefits, and drive down industry standards. This has the added benefit for the employers of pitting union workers against non-union workers and dividing the workforce.

Strikes by Federal Employees Outlawed

The Taft-Hartley Act prohibited strikes by federal government employees or workers in government-owned corporations. Even if federal workers are paid poverty level wages or toil under unbearable working conditions, they are forced to stay on the job. If they dare to strike, they can expect to face harsh sanctions.

A dramatic example of this occurred in 1981 when the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) struck. The workers were fired æ some were hauled away in ball-and-chain to serve prison sentences æ and PATCO was destroyed. This was government strike-breaking and union-busting at its worst.

Contributions by Unions to Candidates for Federal Office Outlawed

As a further step to weaken unions and limit their political power, Taft-Hartley made it illegal for unions to contribute any money from their treasuries to candidates for federal office.

Of course, a union can still collect money from individual members given on a voluntary basis and contribute that to a candidate for federal office. But many unions have substantial treasuries and could, if it were not illegal, contribute larger sums in furtherance of their program to elect people to office who support a workers' agenda.

Damage Suits Against Unions

Taft-Hartley permits employers to file damage suits against unions for breach of contract. Because the American legal system is not kind to unions and the workers they represent, a union that fights hard for its members can find itself in court, defending unsuccessfully against a damage suit for millions of dollars. Such an award was issued recently against the American Airline pilots union after pilots called in sick at a time when they could not get a decent contract.

This legal weapon given the corporations to sue unions for damages is intimidating and dangerous. It is another device to discourage unions from taking strong actions in defense of their members to protect living standards and working conditions.

Anti-Communist Oath

Taft-Hartley required officers of local, national, and international unions to file an affidavit swearing they were not members of the Communist Party and did not support any organization advocating the overthrow of the government by force or any "unconstitutional" means. Even rapidly anti-communist union leaders opposed this measure because they saw it as another unwarranted government intrusion into unions' internal affairs, and because they recoiled at the idea of being forced to swear out the affidavits, which they regarded as insulting and degrading.

The Supreme Court later declares this provision of Taft-Hartley unconstitutional.

Conclusion

The negative effects of Taft-Hartley upon the ability of unions to organize, bargain collectively and strike have been devastating. In fact, this Act profoundly affected the relationship of forces between management and workers to the detriment of the organized labor movement.

Moreover, the situation was compounded when Congress passed the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959. This Act further barred union solidarity actions when it prohibited unions from negotiating "hot cargo" agreements, thus forcing union workers to either handle and process scab products from other work places that are on strike or face discharge. In addition, Landrum-Griffin gave the government unprecedented oversight and control over internal union affairs, dictating the conduct of elections and the handling of finances. And the government has in recent years expanded its control over unions in the U.S. by ruling off the ballot in union elections candidates who had never even been indicted or convicted of any crime.

In the aftermath of Taft-Hartley, the labor movement made its repeal an overriding priority. But as time went by and the so-called friends of labor in both the Democratic and Republican parties made clear that Taft-Hartley was staying on the books, union leaders adapted to it, and the cry for its repeal became muted. The Labor Party, formed in 1996, called for a labor bill of rights which included the repeal of Taft-Hartley and all other anti-labor legislation. Ralph Nader called for repeal of Taft-Hartley in his 2000 presidential bid.

From time-to-time, piecemeal measures to restore al least some of labor's rights, such as barring the hiring of permanent replacements when workers strike, and allowing common situs picketing, have been introduced in Congress. But to-date nothing has come of these.

It is clear that American workers will have their rights protected only when they use their clout to bring to power a working class government. That is the mission and the goal of the Labor Party. Building that party should be the priority for all who believe in the sanctity of labor and the democratic right of unions to build a better standard of living with dignity and security for all workers.

Reply

Reply All

Forward

Delete

Previous

Next

Close

 

Inbox

Compose

Addresses

Folders

Options

Calendar

Help

Other Links: Buy Music Download Music Buy Books Free Games Pharmacy More...

Special Features: Is your coffee table a little bare? Upgrade your PC Read all about it! If you build it, they will come Countdown to the games down under More...