Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From New Militant, Vol. II No. 7, 15 February 1936, pp. 1 & 2.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
The A.F. of L. “will not tolerate within it an organization challenging the supremacy of the parent body.” This ultimatum against the Committee for Industrial Organization, Wm. Green delivered in person to the United Mine Workers convention and when he got the answer he deserved, he protested and insisted that his remarks had been “unfairly” interpreted as an ultimatum.
In the answer given, the seventeen hundred delegates voted unanimously to support the Committee for Industrial Organization and to support its policy of industrial unionism. They voted authorization to the officers to withhold per-capita tax payments to the A.F. of L. should such action be deemed necessary.
This was the highpoint of a remarkable convention. It was known in advance that its decisions would have an important bearing upon the outcome of the present conflict in the A.F. of L. over the industrial union issue. The convention, therefore, received the undivided attention from all sections of the labor movement and, needless to say, not the least from the A.F. of L. top bureaucracy.
Wm. Green faced a supreme test. His Executive Council had demanded that the C.I.O. dissolve. He appeared before the miners’ convention in the role of a patriarch presiding over the great family of trade unions, in which, he said, some of its members were in “open rebellion.” Although he undoubtedly used all his powers of persuasion, he did not leave a very powerful impression. The delegates listened to him in stony silence, broken now and then by a chorus of boos. John L. Lewis on the other hand utilized to the fullest extent all his showmanship talent, lending so much greater effect to the decisions made. In this respect the convention was magnificently staged.
When Green had finished his address, John L. Lewis asked those delegates who had changed their minds because of the address to stand up. Two men stood up. Following this Lewis asked how many believed the C.I.O. should be dissolved. A lone delegate stood up. To the final question how many believed that the policies of this convention should be carried out, all delegates arose amid hand-clapping and cheers.
After this demonstration of unanimity, Lewis was able to turn to Green and exclaim: “I trust, sir, you will carry back to your organization the answer of the United Mine Workers.”
Indeed, the coal miners had given an answer thoroughly in accord with their splendid tradition as militant unionists. They spoke as members of the most powerful organization in the A.F. of L., whose expression of opinion must be accepted in earnest. No doubt the coal miners feel confident that the strength of their union has been restored; counting over 500,000 members, the union now embraces about 85 percent of all the coal miners in the country. Most typical of the recent gains is the fact that the whole of the state of West Virginia is now organized, where formerly, and particularly in Logan County, the terrorism of the coal operators and their henchmen in governmental offices for years kept the union out.
Conscious of their strength, the coal miners in this convention decided also to extend the union to embrace all workmen “in and around coal processing plants.” This, when carried out, would add about 100,000 workers in by-product and gas and chemical plants to the organization. But the craft union officials already claim jurisdiction over skilled mechanics working in these plants. This, however, maybe considered only a minor matter in view of the general conflict around the industrial union issue. While this specific action will play its part, it is the attitude of the miners’ convention in regard to this larger question confronting the trade union movement today that will serve to sharpen enormously the present conflict in the A.F. of L.
No doubt John L. Lewis has also emerged considerably strengthened in the union leadership since this convention. In its most extreme form this was indicated by laudatory and uncritical statements such as those made by delegates from Logan County, West Virginia who compared Lewis to Moses, who “has led us out of the land of Egypt.” But in its real essence the strengthening of the position of John L. Lewis can be motivated only by the readiness of the rank and file coal miners for industrial unionism and to accept progressive ideas. They understand the issues involved in this fight and they have proved that they are ready to make it.
John L. Lewis, however, understands also how to make the best use of his strengthened position. We need mention only the incident of the contemplated boost in salaries for the leading officials, which by the way, became a mere incident only after Lewis had had the opportunity to gauge the real sentiment of the delegates present.
The committee on officers report brought in a proposition to increase the officers’ salaries by 100 percent, which would elevate the remuneration for Lewis from a “paltry” $12,000 yearly to $25,000. The resentment to this proposal was well expressed by an Indiana delegate, J.W. Norris, who said:
“We have miners that are going barefoot. Isn’t the present salary plenty to sustain any one in a standard of decency and health.”
A turbulent debate followed with a demand for a roll-call vote. But the opposition was steamrollered; both Pat Fagan, who was in the chair at the time, and later John L. Lewis ruled this demand out of order and declared the committee’s report, including the projected salary boost, adopted. The following day, however, Lewis cleverly manipulated this question to his own advantage. With a grandiloquent gesture he declined to accept the salary increase. The other officers hurried to follow in his footsteps.
A turbulent debate ensued also on the autonomy question. In this is involved the right of the district organizations to elect their own officers against the present practice of the general officers instituting what is called provisional governments, by appointment of officials who are to work under the supervision of the general officers. On a roll-call vote this practice was sustained more than two to one. Lewis won an easy victory, but surely not, in this case, a victory for progressive ideas.
Similarly Lewis carried the day with ease lining up the convention practically unanimously for support of Roosevelt – to “go forward with Roosevelt,” fighting under his banner for re-election. Undoubtedly the ease of these victories must in a large measure be attributed to the all-overshadowing issue of the fight for industrial unionism in which the delegates by their determination to support the position taken by John L. Lewis and the Committee for Industrial Organization were easily swayed to swallow a good deal more than would otherwise have been the case.
On this major issue none of them made any mistake. They were able to judge also from practical experience. Last year, for example, a number of the higher, and particularly reactionary, craft union officials attempted to have the Guffey coal bill amended so that skilled mechanics, working in or around the mines, would be taken out of the jurisdiction of the U.M.W.A. Needless to say, the miners became thoroughly aroused by this attempted raid.
This, however, is only one small example of the conflict between craft unionism and industrial unionism that is now extending deeper into the whole of the movement in every instance where actual union advance is projected. The Oil Workers Union, also represented on the Committee for Industrial Organization, recently obtained an election under the National Labor Relations Act in a campaign against a company union. Here again the higher craft union officials stepped in and attempted to have the National Labor Relations Board recognize the craft unions who claimed jurisdiction over the mechanics in this field instead of the Oil Workers Union.
It will be remembered that the A.F. of L. Executive Council meeting, held in Miami recently, rejected the appeal of the radio workers’ federal unions for a national charter based on the industrial form of organization. The radio workers have since decided to ignore the council’s decision and to proceed to organize industrially regardless of whether or not this means expulsion from the A.F. of L.
There are similar indications that the automobile workers’ union will go ahead, defy the A.F. of L. decision to segregate skilled mechanics and refuse to let the craft union chiefs raid the industrial jurisdiction which this union has already written into its constitution.
It is thus clear that great forcesare already set into motion in the fight for industrial unionism. In increasing measure these forces will look toward the miners’ union for leadership. And if the recently concluded convention is to be taken as an indication, the United Mine Workers is becoming conscious of its new role. Fundamentally this is the light in which the results of this convention must be viewed in order to get a full and complete understanding.
Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 15 March 2018