Main FI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
The seizure by the government of the Montgomery Ward plant at Chicago on April 26 and its subsequent return to the company two weeks later, have provided the labor movement with another object lesson on the role of the capitalist government in disputes between the employers and the unions. The labor leaders who hailed Roosevelt’s order directing the Department of Commerce to seize the plant as a “victory” for the union, are more than a little bewildered by the frenzied developments that occurred in this short period. It turns out that the union won a Pyrrhic victory! The strike which tied up the Chicago plant and was spreading to other Montgomery Ward units, was called off in compliance with Roosevelt’s order. The basic issues in dispute are left dangling in mid-air. Sewell Avery, head of Montgomery Ward, adamant in his determination to maintain the open shop, persists in his refusal to extend the existing contract and reiterates his unyielding opposition to conceding the maintenance-of-membership clause—the real issue in dispute.
The only disputed question settled was that the union represents a majority of the employees as established by a National Labor Relations Board poll, taken while the government was in possession of the plant. But the union had established this point by its ability to tie up the Chicago plant by calling its members out on strike-a strike which received the sympathy and support of the entire labor movement, with the exception of the Stalinist finks, and gave every promise of being an effective means of forcing Avery to meet the demands of the union. Roosevelt and his henchmen pretended that the only issue involved in the dispute was whether or not the union represented a majority of the workers.
AVERY DENIES WHAT ROOSEVELT AFFIRMS
“If the election shows that the union does not have a majority of the employees,” Roosevelt told a press conference, “that will end the case. On the other hand, if the election shows that the union has a majority, then the management has declared that it is willing to continue its contract and that will end the case.” The plant was seized, an NLRB election was held, and the establishment was turned back to Avery even before the polls were closed, on the aforementioned assumption that the results of the election would resolve the dispute. Avery quickly dispelled this mirage. Referring to Roosevelt’s press statement Avery said: “We have never made such a statement and we never intend to. The only thing the election will settle is whether the union represents a majority of Ward’s workers.”
The NLRB election, in which the union won a substantial majority, decided exactly nothing. Avery’s comment was that the election was of “no consequence.” The company, “would sign no contract demanding a maintenance of membership or a closed shop clause,” Avery declared, “nor would Montgomery Ward renew the former contract, containing a maintenance of membership provision.” After being taken for a whirl on Roosevelt’s merry-go-round, the union found itself back where it started from; a trifle dazed by the dizzy ride and trying to recover its bearings. “The seizure of the plant has been a farce,” declared the union’s attorney. The president of the Chicago local, H.B. Anderson, added: “We hope the old contract will be extended until our new contract demands are met. If the company refuses maintenance of membership, the whole thing will be back in the War Labor Board’s lap.” In other words, “hold on to your hats, here we go again!”
ROUTINE LEFT UNDISTURBED BY GOVERNMENT “SEIZURE”
After his return Avery issued a statement in which he boasted: “During the thirteen days of the seizure no employe was disciplined for failure to maintain union membership, no dues were checked off and no grievances were arbitrated or even adjusted.” In his statement accompanying the order for the return of the plant, Secretary Jones, Department of Commerce, observed that, “at no time during the period of Government possession have the normal, routine business procedures of Montgomery Ward and Co. been disturbed.” In fact, nothing was disturbed throughout the whole theatrical seizure, except the breaking of the strike. After this purpose was successfully accomplished the plant was returned to the company posthaste.
The primary object of the government seizure was to head off the independent action of the workers in fighting for their rights, in referring the case to Roosevelt, the War Labor Board warned that “there is a real and present danger that the disturbance will spread to the plants and facilities of other companies, both in the Chicago area and elsewhere …. Local unions in Chicago in many of the important war plants have voted to support the Montgomery Ward employees who are on strike.” A successful strike of the Ward employees, backed by the strength of the organized labor movement, would be an infectious example for the workers who have been smarting under the provocative acts of management and the run-around they have been getting from the WLB and other administration agencies. Roosevelt’s strategy is designed to prevent the independent action of the workers by channelizing their grievances into the labyrinth of government bureaus and agencies which make up his labor relations machinery.
INESCAPABLE CONCLUSIONS
The lesson to be learned from the Ward case is that the workers cannot depend on a capitalist government to protect their interests. Such a government can function only as a strikebreaking agency for the bosses. Only the independent action of the workers, through their own union strength and solidarity, can bring the “recalcitrant” employers to terms. But today the entire organized labor movement is rendered impotent by the complete reliance of the leadership on the Roosevelt administration. Through the no-strike pledge labor has been deprived of its most effective weapon of defending its interests on the economic field. Once the Independent Labor Party is built and the American workers enter the path of struggle for the establishment of the Workers and Farmers Government-then, and only then, will the workers be able to depend on the government to defend the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people against the greed and arrogance of Avery and all his kind.
Main FI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 19 April 2008. This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Trotskism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.