1940: Congress Of Industrial Organizations (C.I.O.)

Internal Difficulties.

The salient developments in the history of the Congress of Industrial Organizations during 1940 were concerned mainly with its political policy and the rise of factionalism within its ranks. Much of what happened can be traced to the growing coolness between John L. Lewis, president of the C.I.O., and President Roosevelt and his administration. Beginning with conditions arising out of the sit-down strikes of 1936-37, the Roosevelt administration appeared increasingly to resent the demands which Mr. Lewis made upon it and the frequent public attacks which he directed against administration policies. In 1940 matters were brought to a head by the refusal of the President to issue, at Mr. Lewis' suggestion, an Executive Order denying government contracts to firms found to have violated the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act and to agree to the reappointment of J. Warren Madden as chairman of the Labor Relations Board as a condition of Mr. Lewis's support of Mr. Roosevelt's candidacy for a third-term. In a radio address delivered in October, Mr. Lewis announced his support of Mr. Wendell Willkie, the Republican candidate for President, urged all labor to follow him in this step, and promised or threatened to retire from his office as president of the C.I.O. if his leadership in the labor movement was repudiated by the defeat of Mr. Willkie. This decision produced the first serious dissension in the C.I.O. The overwhelming majority of C.I.O. unions, including Mr. Lewis's own United Mine Workers and the United Automobile Workers which he had done much to build, refused to follow his lead and endorsed Mr. Roosevelt. The most influential and closest associates of Lewis in the C.I.O., Sidney Hillman and Philip Murray, also broke with him on this issue and he appeared to be left with a following of only a minority of unions and these mainly left-wing in sentiment and leadership.

The defeat of Mr. Willkie precipitated the whole issue of Mr. Lewis's position before the annual convention of the C.I.O., held in Atlantic City, November, 1940. Before the convention there was much speculation as to the course Mr. Lewis would follow. It was rumored that the communist and other left-wing unions had enough votes to control the convention and re-elect Mr. Lewis. Relations between Lewis and Hillman were known to be strained partly because the two men differed on the question of peace with the A. F. of L. and partly because Mr. Lewis seemed dissatisfied with the policies Hillman was adopting as the labor member of the Defense Advisory Commission. Many observers looked for an open break between them and, perhaps, even a wholesale secession movement of the anti-Lewis unions. But Hillman and Lewis met privately early in the convention and patched up their differences. The convention met in an atmosphere of comparative peace. Lewis kept his promise to retire, since President Roosevelt had been reelected. By agreement of all factions, Philip Murray, an old friend and associate of Lewis's and for many years vice-president of the United Mine Workers, was elected president. While Murray was said to have stipulated that he have a free hand in the conduct of his office, it was commonly felt that control of the C.I.O. remained in Lewis's hands.

Although the convention adjourned without an open rupture, forces of division cut deep into the organization. The foremost of these was related to communist influences in the C.I.O. For some time friction between the right and left groups of unions had been increasing. Early in 1940 an open fight was waged for control of the New York State council of industrial unions, the right group being led by Hillman's union, The Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and the left by Curran of the Seamen's and Quill of the Transport Workers' unions. At the convention the communist issue was expected to precipitate an attack on communist-controlled organizations. But the convention contented itself with passing a resolution denouncing Communism. Nothing was done to discipline or change the leadership of the unions suspected of communist domination. In fact, Joseph Curran, president of the Seamen's Union and alleged to be identified, if not affiliated, with the Communist Party in the United States, was elected a vice-president of the C.I.O.

Closely related with this issue was the attitude of the C.I.O. toward the national defense program. The majority of the C.I.O. unions supported the administration's policies of defense and international relations. John L. Lewis had been critical of these policies as calculated to involve this country in war. In addition he was dissatisfied with the organization of defense activities on the score that labor was not receiving the representation that was its due in the defense agencies. Many times he attacked the failure of the administration to refuse contracts to companies that had failed to observe the Wagner Act. In his general position he had the support of the same group of unions that backed him during the convention. His successor, Philip Murray, while vigorously supporting the defense program, likewise deplored the lack of adequate labor representation in its administration. In a formal statement issued at the close of the year. Mr. Murray proposed that there be set up in each defense industry a council, composed of representatives of industry, organized labor and government, to devise and administer the most effective means of furthering defense production. This plan contemplated not only a radical departure in the management of American industry but was also an implicit criticism of the machinery of defense production already set up by the Federal Government.

Growth.

The internal difficulties of the C.I.O. failed to reduce its vitality or arrest its growth. At no time since its inception has the C.I.O. published accurate figures of its dues-paying membership, but it has for several years claimed to have 4,000,000 members. Estimates of membership based on the number of delegates seated at the last convention would put total C.I.O. membership in November 1940 at close to 3,600,000. This figure is probably not a satisfactory gauge of the strength of the organization. The plants and industries which the C.I.O. controlled in 1940 may well employ more than 4,000,000, and only time will tell how many of the employees working under C.I.O. contracts will become permanent, dues-paying members. In the elections conducted by the Labor Relations Board, C.I.O. unions polled many more votes than A. F. of L. or independent unions. The C.I.O. automobile workers union swept the elections held during the year in the sixty or more plants of the General Motors Corporation. During 1940 the C.I.O. tightened its control in both the automobile and steel industries. In the face of strong opposition from an A. F. of L. union, the Electrical and Radio Workers, affiliated with the C. I. O., has captured representation rights in the majority of the plants of the two largest electrical manufacturing companies — General Electric and Westinghouse. In the textile industry the C.I.O. has been less successful, and in the construction industry where it set up a union as a rival of the old building trades unions, affiliated with the A. F. of L., its efforts have proved abortive. In the last months of 1940 the C.I.O. began to make considerable gains in the expanding defense industries, notably airplane manufacturing, over which its affiliated unions claim exclusive jurisdiction. Since these are the rapidly expanding industries of the country, the C.I.O. has in them a rich source of added strength and numbers.

Relations with A. F. of L.

Neither the old nor the new administration of the C.I.O. appeared ready to take steps to improve relations with the A. F. of L. Any hopes of labor peace that may have been aroused by Lewis's retirement were shattered by Murray's initial remarks on the chances for peace and by the magnitude of the task which a workable settlement obviously entailed. During the year each organization continued to raid the territory of the other. The A. F. of L. entered an automobile union of its own on the ballots of the Chrysler and General Motors elections and managed to win a slender minority of plants. In the textile and shipbuilding industries the battle was fought on more even terms. The A. F. of L. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was rather more successful than its rival C.I.O. union in gaining control over public utility companies, but in electrical manufacturing the reverse was the case. The new membership and policy of the Labor Relations Board favored the Federation, but the C.I.O. was again successful in blocking amendments to the Wagner Act. At the end of 1940, as at the beginning, the indications were strong that the A. F. of L. and the C.I.O. were separate, powerful and competing federations of labor unions in the American labor movement. See also STRIKES; TRADE UNIONS; WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS.