Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From New Militant, Vol. II No. 5, 1 February 1936, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Reports from the Executive Council sessions, at Miami, Fla., fully bear out the unmistakable rumblings of a conflict in the A.F. of L., more profound than any ever witnessed before and of far-reaching consequences for its future. The A.F. of L. is approaching a crisis. Sooner than could have been expected it is coming to its crossroads and it must decide which way to go.
The industrial union issue is now a matter of intense dispute in the high council and may soon become the axis of active struggle throughout the ranks of the organization. On the surface only this issue appears to be involved; but the conflict that is developing goes much deeper. Forms of organization, or to be more exact, industrial unionism versus craft unionism, embrace, on the present-day basis of a highly developed industrial structure, the whole problem of which direction the movement shall take. Its attitude to the most burning questions of the class struggle and its own policies and methods will be vitally affected by whichever of these conflicting forms of organization become predominant.
Militants should, therefore, give the utmost attention to this present struggle in the A.F. of L. They should become its most active participants.
The Executive Council sessions, from beginning to end, were taken up almost exclusively with the question of the Committee for Industrial Organization, headed by John L. Lewis, and related questions. Other matters were simply put aside. This was natural. What could it do, for example, about the projected amendment to the United States constitution, so long as this all-important question stared the craft union dignitaries in the face. The intensity of the debate was reflected in the threats of an imminent split with which the reports of the sessions are filled.
It is stated that the craft union officials, led by O.A. Wharton, W.D. Hutcheson and Dan Tobin, demanded aggressive action against the Lewis’ committee. They are reported to have demanded the suspension of the eight unions whose representatives make up this committee. In the end, however, somewhat more moderate counsel prevailed. A committee was designated to confer with the industrial union bloc and report the results to the council sessions in May.
Yet, in view of the declaration adopted by the Executive Council, the selection of this committee is largely perfunctory. It will have to approach the industrial union bloc with a condemnation and a demand for its dissolution. The latter cannot be mistaken about the intent of the condemnation. Even if there had been no preceding conflict the wording of the declaration adopted leaves no room for doubt.
The Executive Council declared that:
“... there is the growing conviction among an ever increasing number of affiliated unions and those outside of the labor movement that the activities of this committee (the Lewis’ committee) constitutes a challenge to the supremacy of the American Federation of Labor and will ultimately become dual in purpose and character to the American Federation of Labor.”
Further on it is stated that:
“It is the opinion of the Executive Council that the committee for industrial organization should be immediately dissolved.”
This puts the question bluntly, but still not bluntly enough for some of the members of the Executive Council. In the voting five of the “bitter-enders”, which means the most conscious craft union reactionaries, dissented. They said the declaration was “not strong enough”; they wanted more drastic action. Open threats of secession by the unions they control, is reported to have been made by them, unless more drastic action is taken. And how deep-going this conflict really is, can perhaps best be illustrated by the orders that have gone out from Hutcheson’s office instructing all carpenters local unions to withdraw from every city central labor body that indorses the objectives of the industrial union bloc.
No doubt these most conscious craft union top officials fully comprehend what is involved. In the Lewis’ committee they see a challenge not only to the control of what they consider their own special preserve, but also to their whole idea of trade unionism. No matter how stubbornly they insist on the superiority of the old forms of organization, they are aware of the dynamic forces that the industrial union issue may set into motion under present-day conditions. They may not be of the particularly old-fashioned, corrupt type like Skinny Madden, Robert Brindell or “Umbrella” Mike Boyle. Nevertheless they are conscious supporters of the capitalist system. That mechanical skill ought to have a special reward they consider as established by tradition.
In their opinion, organization is, therefore, to be a special privilege of the skilled workers and they feel that this can best be accomplished in cooperation with the employers, or, at least, on friendly relations with them. Beyond this their social philosophy does not penetrate; their interest in organization does not embrace the workers as a class. They are perfectly contented to leave the great mass of production workers in the basic industries outside the unions. And, besides, the organization of these workers causes the sharpest conflict with the employers.
It is true that the bosses do not want any union at all in the big manufacturing plants. It is equally true that, if compelled to make concessions to union organization,they dislike to deal with a multitude of craft unions. But much less do they want unions with greater militant potentialities such as industrial unions, embracing all the workers in the plants, will have. On this basis the reactionary craft union top officials do not find it so difficult to cooperate with the employers. They also want to limit the unions to the skilled crafts. The right to represent the latter is the only concession that they demand from the employers. And so, harmonizing their position in the unions with their own basic concepts, they function essentially as agents of the employers.
Out of this situation arises the great fear of the industrial union issue manifested by the reactionary bureaucrats; and out of this arise also their furious opposition to the Lewis committee. It should be easy to foresee that in further developments of union organization, this opposition will tend to increase rather than diminish. An encouragement given to industrial union organization will immediately inspire them to greater resistance against the onslaughts of the employer and equip the whole working class with a more effective weapon of resistance than the craft unions can give.
Out of this develops also the much more fundamental issues in the present cleavage in the A.F. of L. leadership. In every respect this will tend to increase and sharpen the present conflict. The dyed-in-the-wool craft union chiefs will be compelled to lean ever more upon the bosses and upon the instruments of the capitalist state for support to stem the tide.
On the other hand the leaders in the industrial union bloc will most likely find themselves compelled to lean ever more upon the workers who are actually set into motion for industrial unionism and who also demand democratic unions with an aggressive policy of organization. These workers who are in motion, and whose ranks are sure to increase, will press the issue forward and exert their pressure on the Committee for Industrial Organization. It will be increasingly more difficult for the latter to retreat at the same time as it will be extremely difficult for the reactionary bureaucrats to accept a compromise on this issue. What can be expected is, therefore, a sharpening of the present conflict all along the line.
John L. Lewis, in answer to the Executive Council condemnation, has already indicated that the Committee for Industrial Organization will continue with its program. With his characteristic scorn for the Council, he said: “The mountain has labored and brought forth a mouse.” He added:
“After all the rumblings and convulsions at Miami for a week past, the unorganized workers of the country had a right to expect that the A.F. of L., in its own interest, would extend a sympathetic hand of assistance rather than a churlish denunciation of these organizations in the federation which are trying constructively to help the cause of labor and the common people in this country.”
In questions of basic class ideology it would be difficult to find a real distinction between John L. Lewis and his official co-workers, on the one hand, and Green and company on the other. To foster illusions on this score would be pernicious and worthy only of the mealy-mouthed flunkey. But in questions of organizational policy the gulf already appears to be an unbridgeable one. The very existence of the Committee for Industrial Organization, as inadvertently admitted by the Executive Council declaration, is a challenge to the rock-ribbed reactionary organization policy of the A.F. of L. A continuation of this committee’s work must of necessity deepen the present cleavage.
So far there has not been much concrete evidence of direct intervention by this committee for industrial organization in the mass production industries. Nevertheless, the raising of the issue is an important step in itself and, as could be expected, a powerful response followed immediately. The automobile workers’ union wrote into its constitution, contrary to A.F. of L. decisions, a provision making the union industrial in character. In this field there is a definitely growing clamor for an all-inclusive industrial union in which the independent unions may merge. Representatives of the radio workers’ federal locals intimated to the Executive Council meeting that secession from the A.F. of L. may follow rejection of their demand for an industrial union charter. Nevertheless it was rejected.
On the whole, there is ample evidence throughout the country that the demand for industrial unionism is beginning to take on the form of a movement. Such a movement will be distinctly progressive in character. It will give a stimulus to new and greater struggles and it will provide a fertile field for the advancement of revolutionary ideas of policy and methods of working class organization. This particular fact will undoubtedly exert its influence in a fundamental sense upon the present conflict in the A.F. of L.
It may be entirely premature to speak of the probability of a split in the A.F. of L. in the sense that the report from the Executve Council sessions do. While one cannot lose sight of the fact that the A.F. of L. is purely a voluntary federation of completely autonomous unions, and while secession of some of these unions, sometimes more than one at a time, have taken place before, they have occurred usually over purely jurisdictional disputes leading to a separation of a purely temporary nature. In such cases the secession did not carry the stigma of dual unionism; nor would the A.F. Of L. undertake to organize rival unions in the place of those that withdrew from its ranks. An actual secession movement in this present situation, or a split arising out of this present conflict and around the present issues in dispute would be far more profound in its nature and in its implications for the future. Inevitably the result would be two rival movements struggling for supremacy.
While a split of this nature in the A.F. of L. may not be an immediate probability, it cannot be denied that all the implications leading in this direction are already at hand. The choice, however, is essentially with the officials who are in control of affairs of the A.F. of L. They cannot help but see the handwriting on the wall. They have the choice of changing, and adjusting the federation to the requirements of modern conditions and to the needs of the masses or to give way to other forces capable of undertaking such a task.
The issue of industrial unionism is now of paramount importance. It grows out of the needs of the working class and once its real importance is fully appreciated it can become the vehicle for the revitalization of the whole labor movement. The moods of the masses is changing. The masses seek organization and they seek to utilize their organizations as instruments of struggle for their own class ends. In this respect there are now the most favorable opportunities available.
If the Committee for Industrial Organization stands its ground in this present conflict a first and most important step can be accomplished. It can become an instrument toward the creation of a genuinely progressive movement in the trade unions. This is today an imperative necessity and an absolute prerequisite. Once this genuine progressive movement is finally established there need be no fear of the consequences of any position taken by the reactionary A.F. of L. top leaders, be it ever so hostile.
Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 15 March 2018