Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T22:34:15.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Other New Deal and Labor: The Regulatory State and the Unions, 1933–1940

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2017

Daniel Nelson
Daniel Nelson
Affiliation:
University of Akron
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the end of Turbulent Years, his classic study of the labor upheavals of the 1930s, Irving Bernstein unexpectedly announces that the American Federation of Labor “gained a decisive and permanent victory.” This is a remarkable admission. Bernstein had devoted the bulk of his study to the failures of the AFL and the emergence of a more relevant alternative, the CIO. Like most authors, he associated the turbulence of the 1930s with the rise of industrial unionism, which addressed the apparent deficiencies of the AFL, notably its preoccupation with skilled workers and neglect of large-scale manufacturing. Still, the AFL grew more rapidly. Bernstein tries to explain: the triumph of the AFL “was hidden by the mystique of power [John L] Lewis had imparted to the CIO, by the highly publicized contemporary successes of SWOC…and UAW…and the deliberate falsification of membership records.” While these factors may account for the misleading imagery of the CIO, they do not explain the behavior of millions of workers who opted for AFL organizations. Clearly other forces were at work.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , 2001 , pp. 367 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Bernstein, Irving, Turbulent Years: A History of the American Worker, 1933–1941 (Boston, 1970), 773–74.Google Scholar Walter Galenson attributed the success of the AFL largely to the impact of the recession of 1937-38. “Had it not been for the 1937 recession, the outcome of the 1937 Little Steel strikes, and the exhaustion of CIO financial resources—all interrelated—the outcome of the struggle might have been different.” Galenson, Walter, The CIO Challenge to the AFL: A History of the American Labor Movement, 1935-1941 (Cambridge, 1960), 587–88.Google Scholar Milton Derber argued that the CIO “shock” led to an AFL “Counter-Reformation.” Derber, Milton, “Growth and Expansion,” in Derber, Milton and Young, Edwin, eds., Labor and the New Deal (Madison, 1957), 13 Google Scholar.

2. For recent, more favorable accounts of AFL activities, see Tomlins, Christopher L., “AFL Unions in the 1930s: Their Performance in Historical Perspective,” Journal of American History 65 (1979): 1021–42;Google Scholar Cobble, Dorothy Sue, “Lost Ways of Organizing: Reviving the AFL's Direct Affiliate Strategy,” Industrial Relations 36 (July 1997): 278–301;Google Scholar Cobble, , Dishing It Out: Waitresses and Their Unions in the Twentieth Century (Urbana, 1991);Google Scholar Zieger, Robert H., Rebuilding the Pulp and Paper Workers' Union, 1933-1941 (Knoxville, 1984)Google Scholar.

3. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, 1934–1940,Google Scholar monthly strike data.

4. See the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Annual Reports, National Labor Relations Board (1938-1941).Google Scholar The NLRB did not categorize its cases by industry, but it is clear from the commentary that the vast majority, involving a large percentage of affected workers, were in manufacturing.

5. See Bernstein, Turbulent Years, chaps. 5, 7, 13. Other recent works that emphasize this point include Dubofsky, Melvyn, The State and Labor in Modern America (Chapel Hill, 1994), andGoogle Scholar Gross, James H., The Making of the National Labor Relations Board: A Study in Economics, Politics, and the Law (Albany, 1974), andGoogle Scholar The Reshaping of the National Labor Relations Board: National Labor Policy in Transition, 1937-1947 (Albany, 1981)Google Scholar.

6. Freeman, Richard, “Spurts in Union Growth: Defining Moments and Social Processes,” in Bordo, Michael D., Goldin, Claudia, and White, Eugene N., eds., The Defining Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the Twentieth Century (Chicago, 1998), 265–96.Google Scholar

7. See Lynd, Staughton, ed. “We Are All Leaders:” The Alternative Unionism of the Early 1930s (Urbana, 1996).Google Scholar

8. Freeman, , “Spurts,” 278–80.Google Scholar

9. See Zieger, Robert, The CIO, 1935-1955 (Chapel Hill, 1995), chap. 2.Google Scholar

10. Freeman, , “Spurts,” 280–81.Google Scholar Freeman uses two other tests as well to argue for the bottom-up thesis. The second, CIO expenditures per union member, is of dubious worth, since small expenditures (e.g., in Flint, 1937) often had huge effects. The third test, AFL membership growth, is an irrelevant measure of “bottom-up” activity, as the case studies in the following section demonstrate.

11. I have only used the data for the 1930s. Freeman extends his analysis through World War II.

12. Third Annual Report of the NLRB, June 30, 1938 (Washington, D.C., 1939), 44.Google Scholar

13. Cobble, , “Lost Ways of Organizing,” 282–89.Google Scholar

14. Troy, Leo, Trade Union Membership, 1897-1962 (New York, 1965), 1–2.Google Scholar

15. See Howell, J. Harris, The Right to Manage: Industrial Relations Policies of American Business in the 1940s (Madison, 1982), 32–34.Google Scholar

16. Troy, , Trade Union Membership, table A–l;Google Scholar Christie, Robert, Empire in Wood: A History of the Carpenters' Union (Ithaca, 1956), chap. 19;Google Scholar Schneirov, Richard and Suhrbur, Thomas J., Union Brotherhood, Union Town: A History of the Carpenters' Union of Chicago, 1863-1967 (Carbondale, 1988), chap. 5Google Scholar.

17. See Josephson, Matthew, Union House, Union Bar: The History of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union (New York, 1956), chap. 12;Google Scholar Cobble, , Dishing It Out, 89–107 Google Scholar.

18. See Barber, William J., From the New Era to the New Deal: Herbert Hoover, the Economists, and American Economic Policy, 1921-1933 (New York, 1985);Google Scholar Stein, Herbert, The Fiscal Revolution in America (Chicago, 1969), chaps. 2-7;Google Scholar Collins, Robert M., The Business Response to Keynes, 1929-1964 (New York, 1981), chap. 3Google Scholar.

19. See Freyer, Tony Allan, Regulating Big Business: Anti-Trust in Great Britain and America, 1880-1990 (Cambridge, 1992);Google Scholar Himmelberg, Robert F., The Origins of the N.R.A., 1921-1933 (New York, 1976)Google Scholar.

20. See Hawley, Ellis W., The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly: A Study in Economic Ambivalence (Princeton, 1966), chap. 1;Google Scholar Roos, Charles Frederick, NRA Economic Planning (Bloomington, 1937), chap. 2Google Scholar.

21. The NAM publicly opposed Section 7a while endorsing other provisions. See Roos, , NRA Planning, 49 Google Scholar.

22. The auto, steel, and tire industries are examples; the southern textile manufacturers generally took a hard line from the beginning. See Fine, Sidney, The Automobile Under the Blue Eagle: Labor Management and the Automobile Manufacturing Code (Ann Arbor, 1963);Google Scholar Nelson, Daniel, American Rubber Workers and Organized. Labor (Princeton, 1988), chap. 5;Google Scholar Galambos, Louis, Competition and Cooperation: The Emergence ofaNational Trade Association (Baltimore, 1966), chaps. 8-9Google Scholar ; Hodges, James A., New Deal Labor Policy and the Southern Cotton Textile Industry, 1933-1941 (Knoxville, 1986)Google Scholar.

23. In at least one respect, however, the NRA did succeed: it raised prices. See Romer, Christina D., “Why Did Prices Rise in the 1930s,” Journal of Economic History 59 (March 1999): 167–99.Google Scholar For a thorough analysis of the politics and impact of the NRA, see Brand, Donald, Corporatism and the Rule of Law: A Study of the National Recovery Administration (Ithaca, 1988).Google Scholar Recent statements of NRA ineffectiveness include Pennock, Pamela, “The National Recovery Administration and the Rubber Tire Industry, 1933-1935,” Business History Review 71 (Winter 1997): 543–68,Google Scholar Alexander, Barbara, “Failed Cooperation in Heterogeneous Industries Under the National Recovery Administration,” Journal of Economic History 57 (June 1997): 322–44, andGoogle Scholar Gordon, Colin, New Deals: Business, Labor, and Politics in America, 1920-1935 (New York, 1994), chap. 5Google Scholar.

24. Kaufman, Bruce, “Why the Wagner Act? Reestablishing Contact with Its Original Purpose,” in Lewin, David, Kaufman, Bruce, and Sockell, Donna, eds., Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations 7 (1996): 15–68.Google Scholar

25. Vietor, Richard H. K., Contrived Competition: Regulation and Deregulation in America (Cambridge, 1994), 3.Google Scholar For the context of regulation, see McCraw, Thomas, Prophets of Regulation (Cambridge, 1984)Google Scholar.

26. Vietor and McCraw include banking and securities regulations in their histories. I have omitted them. The close identification of these industries with the business community, the predominance of “white collar” employees, and the widespread use of commission and related wage incentive plans probably account for their virtual immunity from organizing and thus the negligible impact of regulation on employee behavior.

27. See Nelson, Daniel, “The Company Union Movement, 1900-1937: A Reexamination,” Business History Review 56 (1982): 335–57;Google Scholar Schacht, John N., The Making of Telephone Unionism, 1920-1947 (New Brunswick, 1985), chaps. 2-3;Google Scholar Kaufman, Bruce E., “The Case for the Company Union,” Labor History 41 (August 2000): 321–50Google Scholar.

28. The following discussion of railroad legislation is based on Nelson, Daniel, “The AFL and the Challenge of Company Unionism, 1915–1937,” in Kaufman, Bruce E. and Taras, Daphne G., eds., Nonunion Forms of Employee Representation: History, Contemporary Practice, and Policy (Armonk, 2000), 65–68. See alsoGoogle Scholar Huibregtse, Jon Roland, “Years of Transition: American Railroad Labor, 1919–1934,” Ph.D. diss., University of Akron, 1995, 159–94, andGoogle Scholar O'Brien, Ruth, Workers' Paradox: The Republican Origins of New Deal Policy, 1886-1935 (Chapel Hill, 1998)Google Scholar.

29. Nelson, , “AFL and the Challenge,” 70;Google Scholar Labor, 6 June 1933 Google Scholar.

30. Labor, 10 October 1933. See alsoGoogle Scholar Fuess, Claude Moore, Joseph B. Eastman: Servant of the People (New York, 1952), 203 Google Scholar.

31. Labor, 19 December 1933.Google Scholar

32. Labor, 19 June 1934.Google Scholar

33. First Annual Report, National Mediation Board, 1935 (Washington, D.C., 1935), 15.Google Scholar

34. See, for example, Bernstein, , Turbulent Years, 206–15;Google Scholar Galenson, , CIO Challenge, 566–79;Google Scholar Taft, Philip, The A.F. of L. from the Death of Gompers to the Merger (New York, 1959), 72–74 Google Scholar.

35. For Behncke's career, see Hopkins, George E., Filing the Line: The First Half Century of the Air Line Pilots Association (Washington, D.C., 1982), chap. 10Google Scholar.

36. Hopkins, George E., The Airline Pilots: A Study in Elite Unionization (Cambridge, 1971), chaps. 7–8;Google Scholar Cohen, Isaac, “David L. Behncke, the Airline Pilots, and the New Deal: The Struggle for Federal Labor Legislation,” Labor History (February 2000): 50–52 Google Scholar.

37. Hopkins, Airline Pilots, chap. 9; Cohen, , “David L. Behncke,” 58–59 Google Scholar.

38. Cohen, , “David L Behncke,” 60–61. See alsoGoogle Scholar McKelvey, Jean T., ed., Cleared for Takeoff: Airline Labor Relations Since Deregulation (Ithaca, 1988)Google Scholar.

39. Childs, William R., Trucking and the Public Interest: The Emergence of Federal Regulation, 1914-1940 (Knoxville, 1985), chap. 2.Google Scholar

40. Leiter, Robert D., The Teamsters Union: A Study of Its Economic Impact (New York, 1957), 137–39.Google Scholar

41. Childs, Trucking, chap. 3. Regulation changed intercity trucking “from a highly competitive to a highly cartelized industry.” Perry, Charles R., Deregulation and the Decline of the Unionized Trucking Industry (Philadelphia, 1986), 30 Google Scholar.

42. Garnel, Donald, The Rise of Teamster Power in the West (Berkeley, 1972), 57–60.Google Scholar

43. Garnel, , The Rise of Teamster Power, 110xs.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., 113.

45. “Developments in over-the-road negotiations are having an increasing effect on local cartage, and other negotiations.” Feinsinger, Nathan P., Collective Bargaining in the Trucking Industry (Philadelphia, 1949), 2;Google Scholar Galenson, , CIO Challenge, 471–74Google Scholar.

46. Leiter, , The Teamsters Union, 51–53.Google Scholar

47. Ibid., 39.

48. If coal miners are omitted, the organized labor force is about 40 percent of the total. See Troy, , Trade Union Membership, tables Al and A2, andGoogle Scholar Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940 Population III, The Labor Force, parti, table 74 (Washington, D.C., 1943), 180–81Google Scholar.

49. Palladino, Grace, Dreams of Dignity, Workers of Vision: A History of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Washington, D.C., 1991), chaps. 3-4.Google Scholar

50. See Filipelli, Ronald L. and McColloch, Mark, Cold War in the Working Class: The Rise and Decline of the United Electrical Workers (Albany, 1995), chaps. 1-2;Google Scholar Matties, James J. and Higgins, James, Themand Us: Struggles of a Ranfc-and-File Union (Englewood Cliffs, 1974), chap. 3;Google Scholar Galenson, , CIO Challenge, 239–65;Google Scholar Schatz, Ronald, The Electrical Workers: A History of Labor at General Electric and Westinghouse, 1923-1960 (Urbana, 1983), chap. 3Google Scholar.

51. Schacht, The Making of Telephone Unionism, chap. 4. When deteriorating working conditions in World War II led to a “bottom-up” rebellion among Bell employees, most locals again scorned the AFL in favor of the CIO.

52. Schacht, The Making of Telephone Unionism, chaps. 4-5.

53. Fink, Gary, ed., Labor Unions (Westport, 1977), 46;Google Scholar Kraft, James P., Stage to Studio: Musicians and the Sound Revolution, 1890-1950 (Baltimore, 1996), chap. 5Google Scholar.

54. Palladino, , Dreams of Dignity, 171.Google Scholar

55. Troy, , Trade Union Membership, tables Al, A2, A3.Google Scholar

56. Dubofsky, Melvyn and Tine, Warren Van, Lewis, John L.: A Biography (Urbana, 1986), chaps. 8-9;Google Scholar Zieger, Robert H., John L. Lewis, Labor Leader (Boston, 1988), 65–67 Google Scholar.

57. Johnson, James P., The Politics of Soft Coal: The Bituminous Industry from World War I Through the New Deal (Urbana, 1979), 217–36;Google Scholar Hawley, , New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly, 208–11;Google Scholar Baker, Ralph H., The National Bituminous Coal Commission (Baltimore, 1941), 105–19;Google Scholar Fisher, Waldo E. and James, Charles M., Minimum Price Fixing in the Bituminous Coal Industry (Princeton, 1955, 29–39 Google Scholar.

58. O'Conner, Harvey, History of the Oil Workers Intl. Union (CIO) (Denver, 1950), 31.Google Scholar

59. Hawley, , New Deal and Problem of Monopoly, 213–20;Google Scholar Nash, Gerald D., United States Oil Policy, 1890–1964: Business and Government in Tuentieth-Century America (Pittsburgh, 1968), 148–51Google Scholar.

60. O'Conner, , Oil Workers, 36–45;Google Scholar Larson, Henrietta M. and Porter, Kenneth Wiggins, History of Humble Oil & Refining Company; A Study in Industrial Growth (New York, 1959), 372–74Google Scholar.

61. See Bernstein, , Turbulent Years, 771–74.Google Scholar