Subscribe via RSS Feed

This Day in Labor History: November 9, 1935

[ 12 ] November 9, 2011 |

On this date in 1935, the Committee for Industrial Organization (later the Congress of Industrial Organizations) was created.

Ever since the failure of the Knights of Labor to organize all workers behind the 8 hour day in 1886, the American labor movement was primarily dominated by the American Federation of Labor. Led by the cigarmaker Samuel Gompers, it provided a conservative alternative to the radical ideology America’s industrial workers were increasingly finding appealing. The AFL defined itself as a moderate alternative that industry should recognize as a bulwark against radicalism. In doing this, the AFL excluded people it deemed undesirable to its image–women, blacks, Asians, children, and the masses of eastern Europeans toiling in America’s huge factories. This kept the appeal of radicalism very real for millions of Americans who found themselves increasingly desperate for union representation. They would join left-leaning unions such as the Industirial Workers of the World, or join anarchist or communist groups.

Of course, there was often a major division between Gompers and the AFL leadership on one side and the rank and file on the other. On the ground, the AFL often served as a radical force for change in local communities, though, as in the Seattle General Strike of 1919, the federation would throw its radical workers under the bus if it threatened labor’s moderate reputation.

Not only was the AFL’s rejection of radicalism a problem, so was its organizing model. Seeing itself as a group of skilled laborers who had trade consciousness but not class consciousness, Gompers and other AFL leaders rejected the idea of organizing by industry. Instead of organizing all auto workers into a single union, it would rather have 40 unions in the factory, each divided by the specific job one did. This fracturing undermined the ability of labor to act as a radical force for change, which was mostly fine by Gompers.

There were exceptions to this model. Probably the most important was the United Mine Workers of America. The UMWA came out of the incredibly brutal conditions of the late 19th and early 20th century Appalachian coal country, where companies ruled like lords over serfs, where violence against striking workers was commonplace, and where accidents took place at a rate similar to Chinese coal mines today. By the early 1930s, the UMWA was led by John L. Lewis. Lewis came out of the coal mines of the Midwest. Gompers hired him as a mining organizer in 1911 and by 1919, he became president of the UMWA. Lewis reinvigorated that union, calling a huge strike in 1919 that ended when Woodrow Wilson successfully won an injunction against them. Building on the still brutal conditions in coal country, Lewis used the nation’s dependence on coal to force better conditions his workers, who were usually quite willing to strike. This made Lewis hated by the nation’s business leaders but a hero to many who sought a more aggressive unionism during labor retrenchment of the 1920s. Although by no means a socialist (he was a supporter of Hoover in 1928 and Willkie in 1940), he knew how important radicals were to labor organizing and happily used them to further labor’s aims.

By the early 1930s, the increased destitution of the Great Depression led to a huge spurt in union organizing. Pressure to organize workers on an industry-wide basis mounted. John Lewis, among others, led the fight to include industry-wide organizing within the AFL. The AFL tentatively moved ahead with this beginning in 1934, but refused to fund the efforts. Meanwhile, huge industrial strikes started taking place in the face of conservative AFL leadership, including the Minneapolis Teamsters Strike and the Longshoremen’s Strike in San Francisco, both in 1934. After AFL President William Green and his allies slighted industrial organizing at the 1935 AFL convention, which led to Lewis punching Carpenters’ president William Hutcheson, Lewis and his allies began planning to leave the AFL.

On November 9, 1935, the UMWA, along with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and other industrial unions within the AFL created the CIO. Originally, the CIO, then called the Committee on Industrial Organizations, operated within the AFL, but when Green continued dallying on industrial organization, Lewis and others decided to split entirely. The CIO would have a major impact on American history in coming years, organizing some of the biggest workforces in America, including steel workers, auto workers, rubber workers, and electrical workers. Among its early successes were the Flint Sit-Down Strike, the battles to organize the steel plants, and eventually organizing Ford in 1941, a major success both in concrete and symbolic terms given Henry Ford’s hatred of unions. By 1938, the CIO had 4 million members; by 1945, this number had risen to 6 million.

Despite its early successes, the CIO never surpassed the AFL in membership. For one, CIO competition forced the AFL to become more aggressive organizers. For another, infighting between competing AFL and CIO unions in an industry became endemic and undermined labor effectiveness. In the timber industry, the CIO created the International Woodworkers of America to compete against the AFL unions, which operated under he auspices of the Carpenters. The two union newspapers spent more time hating on each other than attacking the timber industry.

The CIO was effectively neutered by postwar McCarthyism, which forced its leadership to kick out the communists that had served as such effective industrial organizers. By 1955, differences between the AFL and CIO were pretty small. The CIO merged with the AFL and thus began a new era of conservative union leadership that still plagues the labor movement today.

This series has also covered the Pittston Strike of 1989 and the Stono Rebellion of 1739.

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. shah8 says:

    Just a note of appreciation.

  2. mpowell says:

    Very interesting. I know one of the very common layman critiques of unions comes from the stories of how getting basic tasks done in a workplace is very painful when you have to involve members of 3 different unions to fix a light outlet when 1 person could easily do the job in a few minutes. I always take these stories with a grain of salt, but I’m sure there’s some truth to them in some workplaces. It’s interesting to note that this (and the complexity of union rules in general) stem from a conservative approach to unionism. If you just unionize everyone in more or less the same union under a broader principle of class solidarity, you don’t have to fret over every particular assignment of job tasks.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      This sounds like a critique you often here coming from the film industry. And I believe that is one field where the unions are still very craft-oriented.

      • Hogan says:

        It was a chronic problem at our convention center, where five or six unions had ill-defined jurisdictions and there were constant battles (sometimes physical) among the unions, staff and convention organizers and attendees. (If you use a screwdriver to disassemble a display booth, are you doing union work? What if it’s an electric screwdriver?) It was years before someone finally knocked enough heads together to get a comprehensive agreement.

    • Jeremy says:

      This is one I hear all the time as well, but have no knowledge about. I’ll definitely blame conservatism the next time someone brings that up.

  3. creature says:

    The specialization of different trades dictated work rules that accomodated that. When I was in the UAW, there was a difference between skilled trades and production workers, with further distinctions within those classifications (this was ca. 1970-72). Later, a URW member & local president, we had various categories for the classification of warehouseman (big warehouse/freight operation). It kept everybody doing what they did best. The more efficient, the better. That meant job security and the company had a better handle on costs, for the mid ’70′s to early 80′S. As the manufacturing base leaves, so do the union jobs (and benefits). The URW lost so many members, it folded & merged with the USW in the 90′s.

  4. bph says:

    Overall this is awesome.

    But, did Lewis really support Hoover and Wilkie? My mind is boggling!

  5. A might-have-been in labor history is Populist UMW President John McBride’s 1894 defeat of Gompers for the AFL presidency. One major issue was union involvement in left politics and party politics of any kind. For a variety of reasons including health problems McBride was unsuccessful. Gompers regained the Presidency the next year in a close vote, and the moment had passed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McBride_(labor_leader)

    The 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters strike was done against the opposition of the national Teamsters (then part of the AFL). The leaders were five Trotskyists who were also acting independently of the national Trotskyists, so basically it was just those five guys and their union local.

  6. [...] over the AFL’s conservatism and its unwillingness to organize industrial workers led to the creation of the CIO in 1935 under the leadership of United Mine Workers president John L. Lewis. The CIO revitalized the labor [...]

  7. [...] Rebellion November 5, 1916–The Everett Massacre November 9, 1935–Creation of the CIO November 11, 1919–The Centralia Massacre November 22, 1909–Uprising of the 20,000 [...]

  8. [...] May 1937, the United Auto Workers was an increasingly confident union. The creation of the CIO and the passage of the National Labor Relations Act had finally given industrial workers access to [...]

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site