The control of strikes in American trade unions

Front matter

THE CONTROL OF STRIKES IN AMERICAN TRADE UNOINS

BY

GEORGE MILTON JANES

Preface

This monograph had its origin in an investigation carried on by its author while a member of the Economic Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University. The chief documentary source of information has been the collection of trade-union publications in the Johns Hopkins Library. This study of the printed material has, however, been supplemented by personal interviews and correspondence with both national and local trade-union officials and with employers of labor in a number of industrial centers.

The author would record here his appreciation of the helpful criticism of Professor Jacob H. Hollander and Professor George E. Barnett, under whose guidance the study was undertaken and carried on.

G. M. J.

vii

THE CONTROL OF STRIKES IN AMERICAN TRADE UNIONS

Introduction

Strikes have been a marked feature of American industrial life during the last fifty years, and this period has been characterized by the rise and growth of trade unions in this country. The two facts are closely connected. The purpose of a strike is to enforce the demands of the men who engage in it by a withdrawal from work. To make this device more effective, the trade union endeavors to organize the workmen. By means of organization three results are accomplished. In the first place, the strike is made more comprehensive and therefore is more likely to succeed. Secondly, the strike is more efficiently financed and the strikers, therefore, can stand out longer. Finally, the advantages won by the strike are better retained when a permanent organization of the men is accomplished.

It is a popular fallacy that trade unions foment strikes and that striking is their reason for being. To this the trade unionist says: "Young and weak unions have many strikes; old and strong ones have few. If unions were mere striking machines, the opposite would be true."^ The importance of moderation is insisted upon by most labor leaders. Collective bargaining is the ultimate goal of nearly all trade unions, and to reach it not only organization but discipline is needed. Strikes are dangerous to the organization and costly. Hard experience has taught trade-union officials that something more than enthusiasm is necessary to win a strike; and, while it may be true occasionally that a union thrives on opposition, a strike is not to be considered an end in itself. If the strike is

* Painter and Decorator, April, 1910, p. 262.

lost, the better wages and conditions obtained by previous effort may be lost also. Experienced union officials, therefore, count the cost before entering on a struggle with the employer. The "get-rich-quick strike method," as it is called, is termed a failure.^ Paradoxical as it may seem, young and inexperienced unions often disintegrate after a strike is won, because it is easier to rely on promises than to continue the union and pay dues. But the retention of higher wages and better working conditions is usually contingent on the continuance of the union. The trade-union leader must not merely estimate the chances of success, but must also consider whether the ground won can be held. The law of the survival of the fittest has, therefore, brought about a more or less complete control of strikes in many unions, while in all there is unanimity of opinion concerning the value and need of organization and discipline.

The purpose of this study is to describe the control of strikes exercised by the general or national unions. The evolution of strike initiation from local autonomy to control by the general or national union is first described. This is followed by a somewhat detailed account of the place of the national deputy or agent, and the influence of arbitration. The initiation of strikes is then taken up, after which the unauthorized strike or independent action on the part of local unions is discussed in connection with a classified list of unions and union policies. A consideration of strike management follows, together with a description of the methods used and the part taken by the national deputy or agent. The real source of control, the power of the purse, is then described in the matter of strike benefits, their amounts, and the rules under which they are paid. An account of the growth and influence of the strike fund follows, and in conclusion some figures are quoted as to the amounts paid out in strike benefits. The final chapter is devoted to a discussion of the methods used in bringing a strike to an end.

Shoe Workers' Journal, February, 191 1, pp. 25, 26.

Chapter I

The early history of strikes in American trade unions is characterized by what may be termed the anarchy of local autonomy. The course of development has been away from local independence in all matters pertaining to strikes, towards the vesting of authority in the matter in the hands of the national unions and their officers.

Previous to the panic of 1837 general trade unions composed of the local unions in a particular locality were organized in the larger cities on the Atlantic seaboard. Some measure of control over the initiation of strikes was developed by these organizations. The New York General Trades' Union, for instance, provided in 1833 that "no Trade or Art shall strike for higher wages than they at present receive, without the sanction of the Convention."^ Under this rule a strike of the cabinet makers was sanctioned in 1835.^ The Philadelphia General Trades' Union, likewise, provided in 1836 that any society before striking must give a written notice to the president, who should call a special meeting; if a two-thirds vote of the societies present was given in favor, the strike was to be sanctioned and aid granted. No aid was granted, however, unless the society had been represented in the union for the space of six months and had compHed with all other constitutional requirements.^ With the panic of 1837 and the depression which followed, the trade unions went to pieces. The period of rising prices after 1843 found the working classes unorganized, and although there were numerous strikes throughout the country they were sporadic and without

^ J. R. Commons and H. L. Sumner, Documentary History of American Industrial Society, vol. v, p. 218. 2 Ibid., p. 234. » Ibid., p. 347.

II concerted action.^ "Before the unorganized strikers," says Professor Commons, "could be united in permanent labor organizations, however, prices had resumed their downward course. Strikes were now futile and the workers turned their attention towards labor reforms through legislation and through cooperative purchasing and mutual insurance."^ The interesting thing about this early movement is that the necessity for strike control was recognized and an attempt made to secure it through the only available organ, — the local federation of unions.

A characteristic feature of the trade-union movement since 1852 has been the increasing dominance of the national union, that is, the union of local bodies into a national organization. All other forms of grouping have been subordinated to the control of the national union The more fully the trade unions have turned from political and cooperative aims the more thoroughly the national union has established its preeminence. For brief periods the supremacy of the national union has been threatened — as, for instance, during the great growth of the Knights of Labor — but it has always reasserted itself.

The control of strikes has been exercised, therefore, primarily by the national union. Each step in the increasing dominance of the national union has been evidenced by a new check on the power of the local unions to initiate strikes or by the assumption of power on the part of the national union to manage strikes. The control of strikes is by no means equal in all the one hundred and thirty national unions. In the newer and weaker unions local autonomy in strike control is almost complete; in

* In 1846, however, the New York handloom carpet weavers in an effort to bolster up their decaying handicraft met in convention and provided for mutual help. All grievances were to be submitted to the workers of each factory for advice, and before using stringent measures "two-thirds of the whole Trade, the number aggrieved included," should approve and advise the same (J. R. Commons, Documentary History of American Industrial Society, vol. viii, p. 241).

•The term "national union" is used throughout this study synonymously with "international union." The greater part of the American trade unions have branches in Canada, and accordingly style themselves international unions.

others the national control is absolute. But the development everywhere is in one direction, — the substitution of national for local control. The evolution of national control will be illustrated by a description of several of the older unions. As in biology life forms repeat or recapitulate in a brief time the previous slow stages of development, so now unions by direct imitation of older unions, or by stern necessity, approach in many respects a common type of policy.

The national union of the Printers, the oldest of the national unions, was organized as the National Typographical Union in 1852. For thirty years the local unions in this organization enjoyed almost complete autonomy, and all that the national union did in the matter was to protest against too frequent strikes. In 1876 rules for the government of strikes were passed providing for at least a three-fourths majority vote of the local union, "all the members being constitutionally notified of the meeting," in order to initiate a strike. Members to have the right to vote must have belonged to the local union at least six months.^ "Since the local unions in case of strike were not aided by the International," says one authority, "disobedience to these rules carried no penalty."^ With the establishment of the strike fund in 1885, a larger degree of control began to be exercised by the national union. ^ The real executive power of the union is now vested in an executive council composed of the president, the secretary- treasurer, and the second vice-president, and all strikes must receive the sanction of this body.^°

Local autonomy was the rule with the Iron Holders' Union for several years after its organization in 1859. A strike was sanctioned by the convention of 1861, but with the resolution "that this body recommends to local unions to discountenance all strikes in their respective localities

^ G. E. Barnett, "The Printers: A Study in American Trade Unionism," in American Economic Association Quarterly, October, 1909,

9 Ibid., p. 67.

See below. Chapter V.

until every other remedy has been tried and failed. "^^ As early, however, as 1863 the initiation of a strike was made subject to the approval of a referendum vote.^^ In 1866 the corresponding representatives were earnestly requested to return all unauthorized strike circulars under penalty of having their names published if they did not do so. Two official strike circulars sent out the same year received yeas 100, nays 5, and yeas 92, nays 9, and strikes were authorized in both cases. Strikes were generally authorized; out of forty-one applications in 1866 only three failed to pass. President Sylvis declared that the strike rules had worked well, but added that strikes should be discouraged as much as possible. The rule requiring a two-thirds vote of all the local unions to sanction a strike was changed in 1874 to two-thirds of all the votes.^^ The president was also obliged to give all the facts in his possession when issuing a strike circular .^^ Another change was the grant to local unions of the same number of votes on strike circulars as the number of delegates they were entitled to in convention. Local unions failing to return strike votes were to be fined ten dollars and to suffer forfeiture of all rights until the fine was paid.^^

President Saffin in 1873 published a number of executive decisions in regard to the initiation of strikes, such as the following: no member can strike a job, no shop committee can order a strike, and no job or shop can be struck except by a two-thirds vote of the members at a regular meeting, or at a special meeting when due and proper notice has been given to every member to be present.^^ These decisions formed precedents and have been followed by the officers of other national unions. A standing resolution enacted in 1876 that the question of either financial or

" International Journal [Iron Molders], April, 1874, p. 322. 12 Ibid., May, 1874, p. 354.

18 Ibid., April, 1873, P- i; Constitution, 1876, p. 32.

moral support should be voted on, and if sanction for a strike with moral support was given, no benefits would be paid.^^ Considerable discontent arose in regard to the referendum vote in the matter, and wider control was given the executive board in 1878; but President Saffin refused to recognize such power .^^ One critic said that such executive boards were copied from the Friendly Societies of England and were bound to fail in America .^^ It was not until 1882, after several years of agitation, that absolute control of all strikes and lockouts was put into the hands of the executive board and the president, with the instruction to see that no more strikes should be carried on at any one time than the organization was able to conduct.^ A similar development has taken place in the Bricklayers and Masons' International Union since its organization in 1865. At first the general president submitted strike proposals to the presidents of the local unions for approval or disapproval.^^ Such strike arrangements were found to be crude and inefficient and not clear .^^ The executive committee, made up of the president and the vice-president, sanctioned strikes, saying that in the absence of any definite rule the matter was left entirely to their judgment.^^ In 1868 the following rule was enacted to govern local unions in initiating strikes: "Such unions shall transmit to the president of this union a bill of grievance properly filled up and signed by the president and recording secretary, attested by the seal thereof. When a union wishes to make application for authority to strike the yeas and nays shall be taken and it shall require a majority of two-thirds of the members of said union to adopt the motion. The result of the vote shall in all cases be returned to the president of this union, who on receipt of the bill of grievance shall notify the secretary to forward a printed copy thereof

21 Iron Molders' Journal, December 10, 1878, p. 62.

23 Constitution, 1867, art. xii. 2^ Proceedings, 1868 p. 23.

to each corresponding representative who shall return the same within twenty-four hours with decision thereon. If at the expiration of twelve days he shall find a majority of two-thirds in favor of granting authority to strike, he shall notify the union ; and action thereon shall be taken by said union within five days from the receipt of said notice. It shall require a two- thirds majority of said union to authorize a strike. "^^ President Gaul protested in 1870 that too many local unions went out on strike before asking for official sanction. He declared himself against strikes, but urged that in any event the mode of initiating strikes should be less cumbersome and more expeditious.^^ A proposal in the following year to put the matter in the hands of the president was rejected .^^ President O'Keefe in 1870 refused to sanction a strike which had received the endorsement of the local unions because of information received after issuing the circular. The matter was threshed out at three conventions, and finally the local union received its strike benefits.^^

The greatest complaint against the general vote was the delay of local unions in making returns. The committee on general good recommended in 1886 that all local unions hold weekly meetings in order that their secretaries may be able to bring requests for a strike vote promptly before them for action .^^ It was even said that some local unions did not answer at all. To meet this condition it was provided in 1887 that a failure to return strike answers should be penalized by a fine of five dollars.^^ But even this did not bring the desired results, and the following rule was passed the next year: "Any Subordinate Union failing to report their decision for or against a permission to strike within the specified time, the Secretary shall enter such Unions as voting in the affirmative upon the records of the Bricklayers and Masons' International Union." The time of five days originally set was in 1890 extended to ten days. Unions were requested to transmit their answers, yes or no, by telegraph to avoid delay .^^

Aside from recommendations that strike votes should be taken more quickly, it was proposed from time to time to put the entire matter in the hands of the executive board. Power to investigate strikes was given this board in 1894,^^ more authority in 1897,^^ and finally in 1903 the whole matter of strikes and full power in regard thereto were thus referred .^^ Pure democracy thus made way for representative government.

The Cigar Makers organized a general union in 1864, and their rules governing strikes did not involve any great amount of centralized control until 1879. Until then the executive board was obliged to sanction without exercising any discretion all strikes except those for an increase of wages.^^ The depression of 1873 led to many strikes, and a committee reported in that year that the reason so many had been failures was because the requirements of the law had not been carried out. Recommendation was made for the more rigid enforcement of the rules relating to strikes and assessments.^^ In 1879 a thorough change in regard to the initiation of strikes was effected, and the rules then adopted remain substantially unchanged. Strikes involving less than twenty-five members are sanctioned at the discretion of the executive board. All involving more than twenty-five members are submitted to a vote of all local unions. If a majority of those voting

32 Proceedings, 1888, pp. 69, 113. The following is a characteristic strike report: "The vote on Circular No. 5, being the bill of grievance of Union No. 13, of Lowell, Massachusetts, asking for permission to strike, has been received, resulting in favor of said bill as follows: Number of Unions voting Yes, 227; Number of Unions No, 25; Number of Unions not voting within the ten days required by law, and which are counted in the affirmative, 75; excused from voting, i; total vote in favor, 302; Number of Unions question submitted to, 328."

3* Proceedings, 1897, pp. 70, 72. 35 Proceedings, 1903, pp. 115, 116. 3s Constitution, 1867, art. vii, sec. 10. 37 Proceedings, 1873, 45- 2 approve the application, the desired permission is given. Any strike for an increase of wages, however, is not considered legal unless approved by a two-thirds majority of all votes cast. The penalty for local unions failing to vote within one week commencing on the day the circular is mailed is fixed by the executive board. The local unions may send their vote by telegram at the expense of the national union provided their location is over two hundred miles distant from the office of the national president. The vote of local unions on strikes is in proportion to their membership: one vote, from seven to fifty members; two votes, from fifty to one hundred members or fraction of not less than seventy-five; three votes, from one hundred to two hundred, and an additional vote for every additional one hundred members.^^ Provision was made that the national president in submitting an application to strike should state the number of men already on strike in other localities; the condition of the funds per capita; how much the per capita assessment would be in order to make up the requisite amount, and all other information in his possession bearing upon the matter .^^

The tendency of local unions to vote in favor of a strike hastily and without thought or merely by mob influence has been obviated to a certain extent. A rule was passed in 1886 that "all votes in local unions upon questions of strikes must be voted by secret ballot and all votes taken contrary to this method shall not be counted. A unanimous strike vote invites suspicion that the rule is being violated, and word is returned from headquarters that "unanimous strike votes don't go here."^^

The transition from local autonomy to central control in the initiation of strikes might be traced in the case of other unions; but much of this, certainly in the case of the older and stronger unions, would simply repeat the experiences of the Printers, the Iron Molders, the Brick- 's Cigar Makers' Official Journal, September 15, 1879, P* 3* Constitution, 1881, art. vi, sec. 7.

Constitution, 1886, art. vi, sec. 25. *^ Interview with President Perkins of the Cigar Makers.

layers and Masons, and the Cigar Makers. The tendency is toward centralized control, and new unions usually copy the policies and rules of older unions. A referendum vote, similar to that used by the Cigar Makers, is taken by the Box Makers, the Chain Makers, the Piano and Organ Workers, the Stone Cutters, and the Tobacco Workers. The Flint Glass Workers and the Operative Potters require a vote of the trade, while the railroad brotherhoods also take a general vote before acting. Some sixty-five national unions require that sanction for initiating a strike be had from the executive board. As these executive boards are composed of the general officers and elected members, control of strike initiation is in the hands of the general union through its elected representatives.

Chapter II

The method usually followed in asking for sanction to strike is for the local union to send with its application to the executive board a statement containing full details as to trade conditions, the strength of the local union, and the prospects for a successful strike. Some unions, like the Carpenters and Joiners, have worked out an elaborate schedule of inquiries to be answered by the president and the secretary of the local union. The information thus obtained makes it possible for the national officers to decide whether a strike ought to be authorized. In many unions this detailed information is either supplemented by or obtained entirely through a general representative or agent. Many of the general officers became dissatisfied with the method of obtaining information through correspondence with local officials, and so with the gradual development of centralized authority in the national unions has come the national agent or deputy.

The national agent may be found as far back as 1866, when President Sylvis of the Iron Holders personally supervised the initiation of a strike in Cleveland, Ohio. "I appointed," he says in his report,^ "Mr. Alexander Faulkner to look after the interests of the Union ; he is still acting under my direction." Faulkner also visited several local unions and settled one strike. The convention of 1863 had already empowered him to visit all local unions, he, however, to collect and pay his own expenses. The Bricklayers and Masons in 1867 gave their president power to appoint a deputy for each local union to supervise the working of his union and to report to the president of the

^ Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Session, in International Journal [Iron Molders], January, 1867, p. 306.

national union all violations of the constitution by his union .2 This usage is still found in the Steel Plate Transferers' Association, whose president may appoint national deputies to represent the association where members are employed. A strong feeling in favor of local autonomy persisted, however, among the Bricklayers; for in the convention of 1871 a recommendation that the president visit each union between the sessions failed to carry, and when taken up again at the convention of 1872 was laid on the table for ten years.

The chief executive as an authoritative representative of the national union is found in strongest exemplification, perhaps, in the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. P. M. Arthur, on taking the office of grand chief engineer in 1874,^ began to visit the members of the various divisions and also railroad officials, such as President Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Through his personal conferences and efforts an agreement was made with the Grand Trunk Railway in 1875,^ which being violated led to a strike and the making of a new agreement in 1877.^ The following extract from a letter written by Mr. Arthur in 1876 to the general superintendent of a railroad illustrates the procedure which he followed in cases where a strike was threatened :

The laws and rules of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, to which the engineers in your employ belong, require them, when a question arises between them and their employers that they cannot settle satisfactorily, to send for the Grand Chief Engineer. It is his duty to come and use all honorable means in his power to prevent any difficulty occurring between them and the company. Your engineers have sent for me; I have come, not in the spirit of coercion as dictator, but rather as mediator, and would Hke an interview with you and a committee of your engineers. If you will be kind enough to grant the favor, please inform the bearer of time and place.^

The rules of the Locomotive Engineers conferring authority on their executive in regard to threatened strikes have been frequently copied by other organizations. This has

* Locomotive Engineers' Monthly Journal, June, 1874, p. 310.

5 Ibid., February, 1877, p. 65.

been due to a large extent to the strong personality and the long and successful administration of Mr. Arthur. Says one writer: "Arthur was the man who led us out of the darkness and wilderness of intemperance, taught us to mind our own business, to attend to our duties, and the importance of non-interference with the affairs of other organizations."^

In addition to the written application, the Granite Cutters in 1880 provided for a report by a committee made up of representatives from the two nearest branches and one of the members of the branch in which the difficulty existed.^ This report was to describe the condition of the local union and to advise as to the expediency of a strike. James Duncan in 1901 advocated the adoption of a constitutional provision requiring a national officer to visit places where grievances required attention,^ and the suggestion was finally incorporated in the constitution in 1905.10

The Cigar Makers provided in 1886 that the president should appoint, subject to confirmation by the executive board, a member of the national union as agent for a strike or lockout which involved more than fifty members and which had been carried on for a period of eight weeks.-^^ Provided with proper credentials to act as agent or representative of the national union, he was to proceed to the locality of the strike or lockout. The convention in the following year^^ struck out the clause "has been carried on for a period of eight weeks," thus leaving all strikes and lockouts involving more than fifty members open to investigation and settlement by an agent. The rule regarding the agent was changed at the Detroit convention in 1896,1^ and an agent is now sent whenever a strike or lockout involving more than fifty men is contemplated or may

' Locomotive Engineers' Monthly Journal, October, 1896, p. 886.

8 Constitution, 1880, art. xiii.

^ Granite Cutters' Journal, June, 1901, p. 5.

arise. The local union is required to telegraph within twenty-four hours to the president, who shall within twenty-four hours appoint a member of the national union to proceed to the locality. The report of the committee to which this article was referred said: ''It should be apparent to all who have taken note of the foregoing circumstances (costs and difficulties) in the labor movement that where arbitration steps in prior to a difficulty great good has resulted."

The Iron Holders in 1882 ordered that the president either in person or by deputy should visit the place of grievance, investigate, and endeavor to adjust the matter .^^ The Carpenters and Joiners in 1890^^ and the Bricklayers and Masons in 1894^^ made the appointment of such a deputy a fundamental policy.

A special variety of the national deputy is found in the "special defense organizers" of the Hotel and Restaurant Employes' International Alliance and Bartenders' International League instituted by the convention of that organization in 1909.^^ These officials are appointed by the executive board for work in localities where the interests of the union are threatened. Such representatives are sent into towns or cities or states where the unions are confronted with antagonistic legislation, strikes, or serious trouble of any character. As the organization has few strikes, the work of these deputies is chiefly in connection with legislative movements or public agitations concerning the liquor question.

Although the deputy is usually appointed by the president or the executive board and is subject to their direction, it not infrequently happens that a deputy is sent to a particular place by direct order of a convention of the national union. An illustration of this is afforded by the action of the 1903 convention of the Carriage Workers.^^

24 CONTROL F STRIKES IN AMERICAN TRADE UNIONS

The business agent of Local No. 83 of Baltimore requested that a national representative be sent to Baltimore to straighten out the existing difficulty and, if possible, try to prevent the threatened strike. John Brinkman was authorized to go for two days with expenses paid by the executive board. Naturally such action on the part of the convention occurs almost exclusively in those unions in which the deputy system is either non-existent or is only slightly developed.