The Rise and Subsequent Decline of Labor Union Organization and Activity
in American Society, with Historical Emphasis on the Southern Coalfields
of Appalachia.
By:
Bradley R. Woods
Thesis submitted to the Graduate College
Of
Marshall University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Arts
In
Sociology
Committee Members:
Dr. Richard Garnett (Chair)
Dr. Kenneth P. Ambrose (Department Chair)
Dr. Frederick Roth
Keywords:
Karl Marx
Ideological Social Control
Labor Union
Taft-Hartley Act
Marshall University
2003
ABSTRACT
The Rise and Subsequent Decline of Labor Union Organization and Activity
in American Society, with Historical Emphasis on the Southern Coalfields
of Appalachia.
By: Bradley R. Woods
Labor unions have fundamentally altered American society and forever
changed the capitalist economic system and the very ideology of the American
labor force.
Using a secondary historical analysis the central argument that
unions are most productive when exploitation is at is highest point is explored. In
addition the background of coal mining and conditions within Appalachia are
analyzed to further gain insight on class conflict and other theories proposed by
Karl Marx. The “battles” within the coalfields of Appalachia are some of the
bloodiest and most violent of all the labor struggles in the history of American
society.
The coalfield battles are used as a backdrop to underscore the
oppressive and exploitative conditions that were faced by workers during early
unionization attempts.
In addition a synopsis of American society is both pre and post World War
II is examined to illustrate the conditions that led to the decline of unionism within
American society.
ii
Dedication
This paper is dedicated to my parents Daniel and Sharon Woods for
always pushing me to strive not only in education but also as a human being.
Also for their insight into the struggle faced by so many rank and file members of
society, particularly those in the Appalachian coalfields.
Also, I would like
dedicate this in memory of my grandfathers—James P. Damron and Claude E.
Woods.
Their membership and participation in the UMWA provided the
inspiration necessary to approach this topic with degree of dedication that was
required.
iii
Acknowledgements
I’d first like to thank my wife, Jaime, who continually gives me inspiration
to continue on my chosen life path. Secondly, I would like to thank the Sociology
Department at Marshall University for their support and friendship. I’d like to
thank Dr. Kenneth P. Ambrose, who has helped me greatly through my years at
Marshall University, his willingness and sincerity goes unmatched. In addition I
would also like to thank Dr. Richard Garnett, who chaired my thesis committee,
for his enthusiasm and enduring humor, Dr. Garnett posses the rare quality of
being able to inspire, motivate, and educate each individual student despite his
demanding and often seemingly impossible schedule. A special thanks goes to
Dr. Frederick Roth who happily joined my thesis committee on such short notice.
Dr. Roth genuinely cares for his students and it is this commitment that makes
his presence at Marshall University all the more rewarding. Last, I would like to
thank Dr. Lynda Ewen, her passion and dedication to Appalachia and sociology
were very influential for me and without her guidance throughout the years, I
could have not completed this project.
iv
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii
Dedication --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
Acknowledgements ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- iv
List of Tables ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vi
Chapter 1: Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ------------------------------------------------------- 7
Chapter 3: Appalachian Oppression and Exploitation--------------------------------13
Chapter 4: The Bloody Struggle for Solidarity -----------------------------------------19
Chapter 5: The Rise and Fall of Unionization ------------------------------------------23
Chapter 6: Conclusion -----------------------------------------------------------------------44
References---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------48
v
List of Tables
Table 1
Coal-Mining Labor Force of Southern West Virginia by
Race and Ethnicity, 1907-10________________________________________5
Table 2
Union Wages and Benefit Advantages, 1995 (wage per hour equivalent)_ 12
Table 3
Labor Union Membership and Density from 1934-2002
(Approximations) _______________________________________________42
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine the cause(s) for labor
organizations (unions) and their place in the history of American society (both
historically and presently), particularly in the Appalachian coalfields.
It is
necessary, sociologically, when studying early unionization membership and the
decline that was to follow, to examine the underlying philosophies on which labor
unions are based. Examining the classical theories such as those proposed by
Karl Marx and his observations of class conflict, allows the researcher to better
understand the reason for the rise and then the decline in union membership. To
explain this it is necessary to delve into the history of America and how the
emergence of capitalism brought with it industrial society. Both of these forces
caused a structural transformation of society away from a feudal, agrarian-based
society to a society prone to exploitation and oppression. It was during this time
that the writings of Karl Marx became relevant to an analysis of American culture.
Based on the observations of Marx, an era of organization amongst the rank and
file members of society began to emerge.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the
point, however, is to change it.—Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
This quotation is the ideology that was present in the forerunners of labor
unions. At the time of Marx’s writings on the emergence of a capitalist economic
system there was an overwhelming sensation by Marx that he merely did not
make observations but rather authored a “manual” that would, at least
optimistically, bring about a social revolution pitting the proletariat against the
1
bourgeoisie. The Communist Manifesto is the starting point for Marx’s ultimate
plan for the overthrow of a capitalist economic system.
Marx suggests that the emerging capitalist class will continue to exploit
and oppress the laborers in the newly emerging capitalist industrial economy.
According to Marx the class conflict caused by this vast overpowering
exploitation is the motivating force in history.
Although there were no labor
unions at the time of Marx’s observations, he did argue that in order to initiate a
change in the system that laborers would have to unite to break the chains of
oppression and eventually overthrow the capitalists. In Selected Works Volume
I., Marx introduces the idea of class consciousness and false consciousness.
These are the concepts that must be grasped by the rank and file before a
change in their condition is to occur. The labor union plays a strategic role in
realization of class and false consciousness. It is the function of the labor union
to allow their members to see their “true” conditions and realize their position
within the capitalist class structure.
In early twentieth century Appalachia, a system of exploitation and
oppression was in place that was not unlike the system Marx observed during
1840’s industrial Europe.
The means of production as well as the political
machinery were all in the control of the capitalist class, in this case the coal mine
operators. During this period there were no laws instituted by either state or
federal government that allowed the mine laborers to form a union, this in
essence neutered the voice of opposition to the working conditions present in the
coalfields of the region.
2
Howard B. Lee’s, Bloodletting in Appalachia details the early attempts by
exploited mine workers at forming collectively in order to better their conditions.
In West Virginia there were four major “mine wars”, where conditions had
deteriorated to the point that it became necessary for the workers to take up
arms in an effort to gain some control over their destiny not only as a laborer but
also as human beings.
Following Marxist predictions of a physical uprising
being necessary to overthrow the capitalists, the workers in Appalachia at times
organized violently to fight their oppressors.
Appalachia provides an ideal backdrop when analyzing early unionization
because of the total domination of the coal operators (capitalists) over their
workforce.
As Lee illustrates, everything was owned by the coal operators,
including the means of production, the homes, schools, churches, and also the
political machinery. Under non-union conditions, the operators could say, and
many did say, to their workers: “You vote for the candidates we have selected, or
get off the job.” (Lee, 1969, pp. 9). These were the elements utilized by the coal
operators to maintain their control of power over their workers. By controlling
nearly every aspect of the community they were able to successfully implement
their ideologies in almost every aspect of life, from the sermons delivered by the
company controlled churches to the education given to children.
This total domination over a workforce is very complex in its nature;
however there were several factors present during early twentieth century
Appalachia that allowed this system to function. The geographical location of
many of the coal seams in rural Appalachia isolated the communities from one
3
another. Mining “camps”, as they were labeled, were located near to the mine
and were typically far away from any other town or city with a sizeable
population. This made occupational alternatives for the miners nearly impossible
as it would have meant traveling a great distance over rail.
Coal operators also used recruitment tactics to lure in workers from other
cultures to work in their mines. Many immigrant miners were introduced into the
local communities from other countries. This created a climate conducive to coal
operators that wished to maintain an ideological social control over their
workforce. By utilizing the traits of other cultures (language, values, etc.), coal
operators were able to maintain their position of power.
For instance by
removing a person from their native environment and introducing them to a
foreign environment a person or group may become dependent on their
oppressors. These were some of the methods available to coal operators at this
time that created a basis for the division of workers that could be exploited by the
coal operators.
Tactics such as these were also employed in the American
system of slavery, which worked remarkably at keeping the slaves from rebelling
against their owners. Table 1 provides an insight into the composition of the
workforce by race/ethnicity in West Virginia mines in the years of 1907 and 1910.
4
Table 1
Coal-Mining Labor Force of Southern West Virginia by
Race and Ethnicity, 1907-10
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Blacks
9,246
24.0
11,621
23.8
Foreign-born whites
6,466
16.8
11,769
24.3
American-born whites
13,261
34.3
20,759
42.6
Unknown
9,594
24.9
4,498
9.3
38,567
100.0
48,647
100.0
Total
(Source- Trotter. Coal, Class, and Color: Blacks in Southern West Virginia 191532. 1990.)
5
It was the purpose of the early unions to galvanize workers to form labor
organizations and protest the unfair and often inhumane treatment they received
at the hands of those maintaining a hegemonic relationship over the masses.
Michael D. Yates in, Why Unions Matter, proposes a thorough overview of labor
unions with the contentions that, although they have decreased in membership,
modern labor unions still serve a key function in American society. In his view
unions not only provide greater financial rewards but they allow the worker to
regain some dignity that is lost. In a Marxist perspective unionization allows a
worker to recover some aspect of their species being.
The intention of this study is to try and understand modern labor unions
and unionization techniques by comparatively reviewing successful unionization
tactics, particularly in the Appalachian coalfields, throughout the history of an
industrialized American society. There has been the question of the necessity for
labor unions in modern post-industrial American society.
By examining the
historical conditions that are favorable and conducive to the emergence of unions
an attempt will be made to underscore the conditions present in a society where
unionization thrives and conversely the conditions that dissuade unionization.
6
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto (1848) is the underlying premise for
the concept of labor unions.
In Chapter One, “The Bourgeoisie and
Proletarians,” Marx illustrates that throughout history there is a constant struggle
between the oppressor and the oppressed. This fight is sometimes hidden and
sometimes open. However, each time the fight ends in either a revolutionary
reconstruction of society or in the classes’ common ruin. This class struggle is a
feature of all social life and everything in the past as well as in the future (at least
until we achieve a classless state) will depend on this struggle.
This is an
important defining moment in history as it is also the birth of a capitalist economic
system.
The development of the bourgeoisie and capitalism began in the earliest
towns, and gained momentum with the Age of Exploration. Feudal guilds could
not provide for increasing markets, and the manufacturing middle class took its
place. However, markets kept expanding and demand kept increasing and the
manufacturing process could not keep pace with this sudden need for
commodities. This led to the Industrial Revolution and personal worth was now
measured by what Marx termed exchange value. The rise of the bourgeoisie to
power meant a change in the structure of all occupations. Now all professions
were wage-laboring professions and everyone in the market economy was a part
of this system.
In Marx’s dialectical mode of thinking he also saw this
transformation as happening in other places.
The bourgeoisie compels all
nations to adopt its mode of production as “it creates a world after its own
7
image.” Everyone becomes dependent on the bourgeoisie and this also has the
effect of increasing political centralization. By molding the world after itself the
bourgeoisie is able to gain control of social institutions (military, schools,
churches, law enforcement, etc.) by gaining control of the institutions in any given
society it creates a climate that is conducive to the upholding of the bourgeoisie
as the predominant class.
This becomes relevant when dealing with the Marxist theory of class
conflict. As the term suggests this is the result of an often obscure struggle
between the capitalists and the laborers. And it must remain in obscurity, to
prevent the revolt of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie must maintain an ideological
social control over the subordinate class, thereby allowing the bourgeoisie to
further exploit and oppress their workers. Class conflict is not only the driving
force of history, but also the driving force of labor unions. It is in this observation
that the forthcoming battles between capitalists and laborers would be contained.
Marx contends that in order for a rebellion to form that there must be an
environment conducive for radical dissent.
This environment will have the
laborers gaining a class consciousness and the exploitation they face will be at
its highest point and the workers will share a common grievance(s). Modern
labor unions have used this very concept to their advantage for over a century.
By nature, membership in a labor union is not a choice but rather a necessity.
When a union calls for a strike the working conditions faced by its members must
be graver than the conditions they will face when they are unemployed and
actively striking.
8
Howard B. Lee (1969) in Bloodletting in Appalachia documents what
happens when the idea of class conflict is acted upon in an Americanized
version. Lee’s work gives vivid examples of the brutality laborers endured at the
hands of the capitalists and those under their control.
Possibly the most
documented evidence of the government (both state and federal) supporting the
interests of the capitalists are contained in this book.
It describes incidents
ranging from the enforcement of Yellow-dog contracts (contracts which forbid
employees from joining labor unions) to the attempted military bombing of striking
miners on Blair Mountain in Logan, West Virginia. The idea of militarized striking
is also shown to be, at times, quite effective in an effort to regain some of the
dignity of ordinary rank and file members. The observations of the coal wars that
Lee recounts are from first-hand accounts as he was able to interview many of
the participants included in the book.
The New Men of Power: America’s Labor Leaders (1948) by C. Wright
Mills, gives a theoretical examination of the power gained by union leaders after
the sacrifices many made during the conflict period examined in Lee’s book.
Mills begins the book by explaining the role of the labor leader, describing him
more of a social actor rather than a private citizen. Mills describes the various
characteristics of labor leaders. To summarize, he is the product of his union
and is like a general of an army, his army being his union.
Labor leaders
organize and sell wage workers to the highest bidder on the best terms available
(Mills, 1948, pp. 3-10). The conceptualization of what it is to be a labor leader is
the central argument in the first of his three predominant works. According to
9
Mills, the labor leader is always under the close scrutiny of both the public and
the members of the union which he represents. In order to be a productive
leader he must see himself as others see him-— a theoretical concept realized
decades earlier by sociologist Charles Horton Cooley.
To be successful in any form of social movement, support must be gained
with the public. The role of the media is also critiqued under Mills assessment of
the power wielded by the leaders of the labor movement. According to Mills, to
understand how labor is viewed by the public it is necessary to look at the role
and influence of the mass media.
Labor is generally left out of many public
media outlets and what does make main stream publication is often edited to
project labor in a very unfavorable manner. The mass media typically ignores
the labor movement until violence occurs.
In a sample survey conducted in
1944, there were five times as many comments unfavorable to labor as there
were favorable. The general rule of labor in the media is that it’s presented as
“sometimes strong and sometimes weak, but what it does is nearly always
morally wrong and no one approves of labor, except the labor leaders
themselves.” (Mills, 1948, pp. 33).
Why Unions Matter (1998). by Michael D. Yates, gives a contemporary
view of the current state of labor unions and why American society still is in need
of unions. Yates’ chapter entitled “The Tasks Ahead” gives a forecast in the
difficulties unions will face in the coming decades. Yates argues, in a Marxist
approach, that given the nature of capitalism and its inherent tendency to exploit
its labor force, unions offer workers a collective voice that will be continually
10
needed. In Yates’ view, unions benefit all workers (including non-union workers),
this benefit comes from the higher wages typically associated with union
members.
This higher wage stimulates spending, thereby strengthening the
economy and creating more jobs for everyone.
To further develop Yates’
hypothesis Table 2 illustrates not only a view of union versus nonunion wages,
but it also takes into account insurance (including health) and pensions. These
items are all critical to the lifelong prosperity of the worker in his/her assurance of
health and sustainability after retirement.
11
Table 2
Union Wages and Benefit Advantages, 1995 (wage per hour equivalent)
Wages
Insurance
Pension
Compensation
All Workers
Union
$16.69
$2.24
$1.15
$22.40
Nonunion
13.35
0.98
0.42
16.26
$ 3.34
$ 1.26
$ 0.73
$ 6.14
25
128
174
38
$16.81
$2.34
$1.31
$23.07
11.21
0.94
0.31
14.14
$5.60
$1.40
$1.00
$8.93
50
149
323
63
Union Advantage
Dollars
By Percent
Blue Collar
Union
Nonunion
Union Advantage
Dollars
By Percent
(Source- Yates. Why Unions Matter. 1998)
12
Chapter 3: Appalachian Oppression and Exploitation
To evaluate the conditions in which modern unionization flourishes it is
necessary to look at the historical aspects of labor, particularly those dealing with
the rise of industrialization and the emergence of capitalism. Indeed the entire
base of American society is arguably based on a system that works by exploiting
one class of people for the benefit of another class. After the writings of Adam
Smith and his most influential book The Wealth of Nations, a shift from
mercantilism to laissez-faire capitalism coincided with the transformation to an
industrial society. Never before had the structure been in place to allow such
great accumulation of wealth by the few.
A system of capitalism with no
governmental intervention to regulate the market was the grand view of Adam
Smith. This type of capitalism, according to Karl Marx, is the predominant reason
for suffering and the suppression of what Marx called the “species being”.
Species being is how Marx identified people as having a conceptualization of
their being a species—a member of society. Under a capitalist system it would
not be possible for a person to produce a commodity to gain a sense of
fulfillment, rather the commodities produced under a capitalist system are those
used for subsistence. A commodity produced by a laborer in capitalist society is
used to garner a profit for the capitalist class so they in turn can gain greater
wealth and power and further exploit their workforce. The laborer works not to
satisfy a personal need but rather to sustain a livelihood; the emergence of
capitalism and the arrival of the industrial revolution brought with it a new asset
the value of a person’s labor.
13
With the shift to this new society there was a belief by Marx that the new
capitalist class would exert an ideological social control over the laborers. This
ideological social control would influence nearly every aspect of a laborer’s life,
not only in the workplace, but in their personal lives as well.
Marx’s
conceptualization of alienation led to the belief that this new method of livelihood
would separate the worker from his work and from his fellow man. No longer
would social groups form around a central theme based in the pride of one’s
labor, but rather workers now were (intentionally) estranged from one another.
This separation of laborers is one of the key tactics used by the capitalist class to
keep workers from revolting or realizing their class interests. By pitting laborer
against laborer the capitalist elite maintain their social control; if the groups are
stratified they cannot organize collectively and push for a change in their
condition. This tactic is still used today and will be explored later in the chapter.
To further investigate the philosophy of Marx it must be realized that his
visions were not philosophy, but rather to Marx they were a prediction of what
was to happen and a general road map of how to achieve this goal.
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways;
the point, however, is to change it.—Karl Marx, Selected Works,
Vol 1.
Unlike others who have written about capitalism and the industrial
revolution Marx’s writings drew upon the power to motivate and to arm workers
with one of the tools necessary to overcome the ideological social control that
dominated the proletariat at the time.
14
This is to be the mark of modern
unionization and their methods still follow upon the teachings and philosophies of
the directive that Marx authored more than a century ago.
Conditions present in the coalfields of Appalachia during the early part of
the twentieth century were closely analogous to the conditions which Marx
observed in Europe decades previously. However, there are also dissimilarities
to the conditions in Europe and these conditions are ideally why the battles in the
coalfields have become some of the most notoriously bloody battles between
labor and capitalists in the history of the world. To understand labor disputes in
the Appalachian coalfields it is necessary to understand Appalachia and the
geographical locations where the prime industry (coal mining) were located.
Unlike many other industries of the time, steel for example, coal mines were
typically situated in very rural areas away from larger cities.
In fact the
population of the entire State of West Virginia in 1920 was 1,463,701 persons. By
contrast the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which is renowned for its steel
production had a population of 2,025,363 in 1920. During the same year the
largest city in West Virginia was Charleston, which had a population of 137,181
persons (http://recenter.tamu.edu).
By looking at the study of groups and communities by German sociologist
Ferdinand Tönnies and his two concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, it is
possible to gain and understanding of what the life of an Appalachian mining
community must have been like during the early twentieth century.
A
Gemeinschaft type of community is one in which people are closely related
through kinship or through tradition. These types of communities typically are
15
portrayed as the small town America where everyone knows one another and
families work together in harmony for the betterment of the community as a
whole. By contrast Gesellschaft communities are typically associated with more
urban areas. These communities lack the cohesiveness of tradition found in
smaller more rural communities. The motivation in Gesellschaft communities is
the need for betterment of the individual with the concern not focused on the well
being of the entire community.
The early mining “camps” of Appalachia contained traits of both of Tönnies
two types of communities. On the one hand, the proximity to one another and
the similarities in occupational trade and living conditions were reminiscent of a
close-knit, family oriented community. However, the means of production and
most often even the property the community was built upon, were not owned by
someone in the community. Outside interests controlled nearly all aspects of the
community; a community was often comprised of some native Appalachians
combined with a mix of immigrants from other countries.
The work being
performed was not for the betterment of the community but rather purely for
subsistence of the miner and their families or for the profit of the coal operator.
This community confusion and lack of bonds between the members of the
community gave the mine operators tremendous advantages in controlling the
workers. The ideological social control exerted by the coal operators was fierce
and often brutal.
Every aspect of life in the coalfields was in some way
influenced by the coal operators.
The norms and values possessed by the
population of the coalfields of Appalachia were introduced by the coal operators
16
and the sanctions were enforced by the coal operators or those hired to do their
bidding. The hegemonic relationship of the coal operators over the coal miners
can only be appreciated by gaining an insight to the vastness of ownership of the
coal operators.
“Ownership of the land and resources gave the coal companies
enormous social control over the miners. “You didn’t even own
your own soul in those damnable places,” recalled one elderly
miner. “The company owned everything, the houses, the schools,
churches, the stores—everything.”
The coal company town was a complete system. In addition to
owning and controlling all the institutions in the town, coal company
rule in southern West Virginia included the company doctor who
delivered the babies, the mines in which the children went to work,
and the cemeteries where they eventually were buried (Corbin,
1997, pp. 1).
This totalitarian style of government in which the coal companies were in
dominant control of nearly all social institutions, had several consequences. The
education received by the children of the miners was a curriculum dictated by the
coal company. The school administrators as well as the teachers were paid by
the coal companies and often at times thinking “out-of-the-box” was harshly
discouraged.
After school activities such as recreational activities (when
available) were sponsored by the coal companies; when a person fell ill the
company doctor is the one who administered treatment.
Often the healing
process from injuries sustained in the mines (which were many) included prayers
given in the local church which, again, was company owned. However, all of
these services do not come without an expense paid by the miner. Each service
was in some form deducted from his paycheck for work done in the mines. The
17
balance after deductions was paid in “script”—a form of currency distributed by
the coal company.
18
Chapter 4: The Bloody Struggle for Solidarity
Early in the history of America there were no laws which gave workers the
right to organize. Attempts at unionization were typically crushed swiftly and
quickly often with bullets and bloodshed. This was the unfortunate scenario that
was carried out several times during the now infamous “mine wars”.
Even
though there had been miners and mines organized (by unionization) for a
number of years there was no law protecting the workers right to unionize. In
April 1912 in Cabin Creek, West Virginia and Paint Creek, West Virginia a conflict
evolved that would mark the onset of one of the bloodiest times in the history of
American industrialism and forever alter the face of labor, not only in West
Virginia and Appalachia, but also throughout America.
This first of several “mine wars” was fought for several reasons and the
miners had stated their demands as Lee outlines;
“(a) That the operators accept and recognize the union; (b) that the
miners’ rights to free speech and peaceable assembly be restored;
(c) that “black listing” discharged workers be stopped; (d) that
compulsory trading at company stores be ended; (e) that “cribbing”
be discontinued, and that 2,000 pounds of mined coal constitute a
ton; (f) that scales be installed at all mines to weigh the tonnage of
the miners; (g) that miners be allowed to employ their own checkweighmen to check against the weights found by company
weighmen, as provided by law; and (h) that the two checkweighmen determine all “docking penalties” (Lee, 1969, pp. 18).
This conflict at issue at the beginning of this particular strike was
essentially over the fairness with which the miners were paid. Cribbing is a
process by which a coal car that has been measured to hold a pre-measured
amount of coal (weight) is framed on the sides to permit more coal to be loaded.
Quite often the miners (who were paid by the ton) did not receive any extra pay
19
even though they were mining more coal in these modified coal cars. Also the
weighmen, who were employees of the company that were responsible for
accurately weighing the coal at the tipple, were often deceitful in the reporting of
their measurement, effectively robbing the miner of his wages.
Of course, the coal operators did not give in to the demands requested by
the miners and unions; instead they strengthened their resolve to prevent the
union from gaining a foothold.
The Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency was the
“guns for hire” for the coal operators. The B.F.D.A. were an offshoot and similar
in nature to the Pinkerton “thugs” who had years earlier, during the Homestead
strike, fired into a crowd of striking workers killing several.
Brutality and
viciousness were the modus operandi of the B.F.D.A and they had no hesitations
about “doing their job”.
“It was a complete rule and it was a ruthless rule. Consequently,
when the miners did go on strike for their unions, they did so not for
simple wage increases, but for their dignity and freedom.” (Corbin,
1997, pp. 1).
According to Karl Marx class conflict is the drive of human history and his
ideas of false consciousness and class consciousness are key concepts to this
motivation. Marx’s outline of a revolution to overthrow capitalism would happen
at a time when the workers gained a realization of their position in society—a
class consciousness. However, breaking the ideological social control imposed
by the coal operators is not an easy task.
For the workers to gain a class
consciousness and realize their place within society exploitation must be at its
20
apex. Then and only then will the workers unite together for the interests of the
common good of the proletariat in an effort to overthrow their oppressors.
In the early coalfield exploitation the cruel treatment at the hands of the
capitalist class created a resistance that would almost become a revolutionary
force. Much like a warlord, Don Chafin, was the ruler of “The Kingdom of Logan”
where union presence was absent. Much of the State of West Virginia had been
unionized, however, a barrier stood in the way that prevented organizers from
gaining access to Logan, West Virginia—Blair Mountain (Lee, 1969, pp. 87-88).
The struggle for the unionization of this area was about to commence and the
battle that was to follow was one of the fiercest of all the coalfield battles. Using
the courthouse as his base of operations, Chafin (who also served as the Sheriff
of Logan County), converted rooms in the courthouse so they would be able to
house scores of machine guns, pistols, and ammunition. He appointed a number
of citizens as “peace officers” to eventually fight the advancing union members
committed to unionizing his territory. According to Lee, “Chafin soon became so
powerful that he controlled the county government and dominated every phase of
the lives of the people.” (Lee, 1969, pp. 89).
On August 24, 1921, Armed with nearly 6,000 miners and enough
firepower to be considered an imminent threat, the miners marched toward
Logan. When word of the armed militia reached the desk of the President of the
United States, he ordered Federal troops to smother the rebellion. The majority
of the fighting took place on September 3, 1921, when federal troops arrived to
suppress the insurrection around four o’clock in the afternoon and ordered both
21
sides to cease the fighting. This move prevented the completion of a mission
only ordered once in American history—the bombing of American citizens by
military aircraft to end an uprising. President Harding had ordered General Billy
Mitchell to take a squadron of armed bombers into the area to end the dispute.
Although the bombing never took place and the miners never advanced over
Blair Mountain into the kingdom of Logan, the country gained an insight into the
plight of miners. Reporting for the Washington Star, a field correspondent sent
the following to his paper:
Everywhere one goes down in the country he hears the name of
Don Chafin, high Sheriff of Logan County. One can see that he has
struck terror in the hearts of the people of the union fields.
Although a state officer, they do not trust him. Every kind of crime
is charged to him and his deputies. He is king of the “Kingdom of
Logan.” He reigns supreme by virtue of a state machine, backed
by the power of operators. It is Don Chafin upon whom the miners
and the people of this section place the blame for this latest blot in
the State’s history. (Lee, 1969, pp. 102-103).
22
Chapter 5: The Rise and Fall of Unionization
The Marxian model of class theory dictates that the “motor” of history is a
force called class conflict. Class conflict, in a Marxist view, is the underlying
struggle in any society between the two opposing classes (bourgeoisie and the
proletariat). However, there must be some unresolved aspect in society which
causes these two opposing “classes” to be in perpetual struggle. The ownership
of property, or more specifically ones relationship to the means of production
determines who is exploited and who does the exploiting. This ownership of
property has characteristics that are exclusionary and that allow one class to
subjugate another class. To the extent that industry plays a role, the sudden and
rapid growth of industry during the start of the European Industrial Revolution
allowed a polarization between classes that briskly transformed society both
structurally and ideologically. The accumulation of wealth allowed the capitalist
class to gain power so quickly that the working class was left with an
unorganized mass of laborers who were thrust into a new type of society with
little to no similar class interests.
This lack of cohesion among the laborers is an underlying theme found in
a society when there is structural transformation of the major industry or an
introduction of a new industry. The early problems faced by Appalachian miners
were not only the exploitation at the hands of the coal operators, but also the lack
of unity, direction, and voice among the rank and file workers. Again, as Marx
saw at the introduction of the European Industrial Revolution, the accumulation of
property and one’s relationship to the means of production largely determined the
23
class interest as well as the degree of exploitation.
As was stated in the
preceding chapter, conditions present in the coalfields were favorable for the
sustaining of an ideology that allowed the exploitation by the capitalist class. The
rapid accumulation of wealth by the coal operators became a basis on which to
exclude other members of society from gaining access to their class or sharing
any similar class interests.
This rapid accumulation of wealth set the basis for the class conflict in the
coal industry for many years to come.
By gaining control of the means of
production early the capitalist is able to construct a system of mechanisms, which
allows the usage of ideological social control to maintain a position of power in
relation to the workers. An examination of the class conditions present in the
coalfields in the early twentieth century gives an insight into what conditions need
to be present in order for their to be a continual and systemic domination of the
working class. According to Ewen, ideological social control is “. . . the control of
the individuals by controlling their minds.” Ewen further explains that ideological
social control is the “most effective” way to maintain control over others because
it convinces people of their class legitimacy. If there is a failure in the process of
ideological social control then there must be control of a group of people by
“threats, intimidation, and physical force.” (Ewen, 1998, pp.103-104).
Ideological social control over groups of people, especially those in a
subordinate position, can seemingly validate the importance of those in the
position of power.
This concept corresponds with Marx’s idea of false
consciousness and the workers’ inability to recognize their true class position.
24
This type of environment is one that labor unions effectively try to eradicate.
According to Yates, anytime an employer gains insight about any attempts by
employees to unionize, a “disinformation campaign” is started.
This
“disinformation campaign”, as identified by Yates, is what would be effectively the
employers utilizing strategies designed to keep a system in force that maintains
an ideological social control over the workers (Yates, 1998, pp. 15). To union
organizers this is the type of propaganda that they must overcome in order to be
successful in their mobilization of the workers. This is where the union plays a
vital role in being an aide in helping the workers to gain a class consciousness.
A labor union’s ability to contradict the ideology implemented by the capitalist
allows them to instill their own ideology that would have the workers to believe
they are a product of exploitation and serve to further increase the profits of the
capitalists. Therefore, in part, labor unions serve as an ideological conduit that
tries to impart its own ideology of class consciousness among its members.
The task of breaking the ideological grip of the capitalists was placed upon
the shoulders of the union leadership. Until the year 1934 the AFL (American
Federation of Labor) was the sole national entity that governed and organized
many unions (approximately 80 percent). Most of these unions, however, were
craft unions, unions which are comprised of, according to Mills, “. . . workers who
have identical types of skill and training, each worker carrying through to
completion some whole process of work.” (Mills, 1948, pp. 55). However, John
L. Lewis, head of the AFL organizing committee (and later president of both the
CIO and UMWA), thought it important to expand the reaches of the AFL and
25
organize industrial workers who are by definition, “. . . comprised of all the people
who work in an industry, regardless of their skill, training, or function within the
work-process.” (Mills, 1948, pp. 55).
John L. Lewis saw a necessity to organize other unions that consisted of
mainly industrial workers, however, at the AFL conventions held in 1934-1935 he
lost the debate and the unions he had succeeded in organizing were branded
dual unions. They were expelled from the AFL and along with the 10 “dual
unions” three others decided to split from the AFL. This split caused the AFL to
lose nearly forty-percent of its membership thereby weakening the organization
drastically. This exclusionary membership practiced by the AFL precipitated the
formation of the CIO (Congress of Industrial Workers) formed by John L. Lewis in
1938. This new organization was aimed at the organization of those unions that
had been typically excluded by the AFL (Mills, 1948, pp. 55-56).
The ever growing industrial economy and the increasing number of
laborers working in these industries were expanding rapidly in the years following
the Great Depression. In the aftermath of the Great Depression and The New
Deal, congress passed the Wagner Act. This legislation made it possible for
unions to be recognized and defended their right to organize collectively. Clearly
the passage of the Wagner Act was a victory for labor unions as it allowed for
unions to gain a better footing and provided a basis for them to exert their power.
In addition, it also required employers to abide by fair labor practices and bargain
in “good faith” with workers.
According to Kimeldorf; “From a sort of neo-
Weberian perspective, the state apparatus is seen as the crucial actor.”
26
(Kimeldorf, 1992, pp. 499). For instance in order for either class (the workers or
the capitalists) to be able to gain a position of power they must have state
support. To highlight this example, it was President Roosevelt who worked with
CIO leaders John L. Lewis and Sidney Hillman when planning the NIRA (National
Industry Recovery Act). This alliance was instrumental in the future success that
the unions were soon to have in the realm of collective bargaining.
The passage of the Wagner Act was a huge success for the American
labor movement.
It not only legally provided the mechanisms that allowed
workers to join a union without fear of repercussions; it also boosted morale of
the membership of the unions. However, employers often did not abide by the
rules set forth under the law and thus the creation of the NLRB (The National
Labor Relations Board) to oversee that employers followed the rules set forth by
the Wagner Act. By some labor analysts the Wagner Act was even seen as a
failure due to the lack of enforcement. The great strike wave of 1936-1937 was
greater in its ability to boost union membership than was the passage of the
Wagner Act. However, again labor was to align itself with government in order to
try and secure its demands.
The massive industrial movement sparked by World War II was again to
be one of the most massive boosts to union membership. According to Moody,
union membership grew from “less than 9 million members to nearly 15 million by
its (World War II) end” (Moody, 1988, pp. 19). It was at this time the power of
unions came into light as government feared any strikes that would stop
production during wartime. Once again the CIO was to be the dealmaker by
27
offering the Roosevelt administration a “no-strike” pledge and offering a wage
freeze. This was done with the belief that the government would put demands on
employers to allow the union to grow and become constant in its effort to become
a social institution in and of itself. This strike-ban was not to last; John L. Lewis,
President of the UMWA, in fear of being labeled unpatriotic, was unable to come
to agreement with the WLB (War Labor Board) on wages for its members. The
WLB was responsible for the control of wages during wartime; and union leaders,
specifically John L. Lewis were becoming frustrated with its rulings. In 1943
Lewis broke the “no-strike” pledge and pulled 500,000 mine workers out on a
national strike. The strike was finally ended only when the government assumed
control citing “general powers” of the President under “noncompliance. . . with a
directive order.” (Perry, 1984, pp.136). This wartime strike sparked what was to
become a new set of legislative initiatives passed in the years and decades
following that were to be detrimental to labor. The War Labor Disputes Act of
1943 was such legislation. The passage of this act made it a crime to conduct a
strike in a “seized mine, plant, or other facility” and allowed the government to
sequester any facilities found in violation of this law (Perry, 1984, pp. 137).
Clearly the national industrial strikes of the early and mid 1940’s were
captivating the country. The unions were not only growing in membership during
this period but in power as well. The amount of power wielded by unions began
to appear threatening to not only the capitalist class but also the government as
well.
President Truman, after much frustration caused by the ability of the
UMWA to continually find loopholes in the no-strike legislation, vowed to give the
28
union a “fight to the finish” (Perry, 1984, pp. 138). The emergence of power that
the labor unions were gaining was beginning to threaten the government and in
1947 the Taft-Hartley Act was passed to amend the National Labor Relations
Act. The Taft-Hartley Act was a blow to the unions and the existing pro-union
legislation. The act required many things out of unions and severely weakened
their ability to function as they once had. According to Moody, it (Taft-Hartley
Act) limited the ability of labor to effectively organize when employers resisted
attempts at the unionization of their workforce (Moody, 1988, pp. 38).
This act was broad and far reaching.
It allowed conditions that would
severely limit unions by:
●Re-instating court injunctions against strikes.
●Gave government an 80-day “cooling off” period, thereby
effectively breaking strikes.
●Gave employers the right to hire permanent replacement workers
to replace striking workers.
●Banned sympathy or solidarity strikes
●encouraged state anti-union "right-to-work" laws which outlaw
union shops where union membership is a condition of employment
Source: Htpp://www.greenparty.org
With the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act there was clearly a drift toward an
anti-union sentiment within American society. Whether or not the public opinion
of unions was shifted unfavorably after the violation of the no-strike pledge is
arguable but yet a critical aspect of the unionization in the decades after World
War II. By the passage of legislation such as the Taft-Hartley act union activity
was often labeled by the general public as deviant. This was a reaction to the
newly passed laws that made some typical union activities illegal. For instance,
under the Taft-Hartley act it was now legal for employers to hire permanent
29
replacement workers in the event of a strike. Regardless of position that is taken
on the relevance of a particular strike the use of replacement workers during a
strike leads to antagonism between both union and non-union employees. The
effects of this strife are twofold:
First, as Yates illustrates, the media often
portrays the unions in an unfavorable light and coverage of events is focused
always on negative aspects of any conflict between union and non-union
employees. “Strike violence always makes the front page, although it is seldom
mentioned that employers nearly always instigate such violence. . . The daily
work of unions in securing higher wages and benefits, safer workplaces, and the
right to a fair hearing for complaints against the employer is ignored completely”
(Yates, 1998, pp.16). This form of ideological social control is a critical aspect of
maintaining not only the privileged position of the capitalist class by portraying
the union as an evil entity bent on the overthrow of capitalism, but also illustrates
the ties of the elite class controlling the social institutions for their own behalf.
“The media shape our consciousness in two important ways—they decide what
we should know and they decide what we should not know.” (Ewen, 1998, pp.
228).
“Labor is sometimes strong and sometimes weak, but what it does
is nearly always morally wrong and no one approves of labor,
except the labor leaders themselves.” C. Wright Mills on labor
unions portrayal in the media (Mills, 1948 pp. 33).
Second, it is also incumbent upon the capitalist elite class to keep the rank
and file members of society in constant conflict with one another. If attention can
be diverted away from the cause at hand, generally some dispute over wages
30
and/or benefits, and refocused upon more trivial issues such as interclass conflict
then it is less likely the labor union will accomplish its goal(s). Using Garner’s
definition of hegemony, as referring to the “. . . process or condition in which
subordinate classes accept the right of the economically dominant class to rule.
Hegemony implies the consent of the subordinate groups to their own
subordination.” (Garner, 1996, pp. 58). It is possible to analyze, from a conflict
perspective, the importance of preservation of this system for the capitalist
interests.
When there is any attempt made by a labor union to organize a particular
group of workers the first item on the agenda of the employer is the
“disinformation campaign”.
This disinformation campaign is an attempt by
employers to dissuade their employees from joining or aligning themselves with
the discourses of the union ideology (Yates, 1998, pp.15). By portraying the
unions negatively employers are trying to implement their ideology into the
employee and justify the hegemonic relationship as acceptable and proper. If the
employee accepts this ideology the employer has effectively gained ideological
social control and hindered the worker from organizing with those of similar class
interests and position. Often if the workers resist the hegemonic relationship and
do not align themselves with the company ideology then, as Ewen suggests, “If
that [ideological social control] doesn’t work, then people must be kept in their
place on the ladder [class position] through threats, intimidation, and physical
force.” (Ewen, 1998, pp. 104).
31
Now, in the postwar era of American industrial society, there was
beginning to be a transformation in the basic ideologies of both the labor unions
as well as the capitalists. Since the inception of the no-strike pledge most unions
had begun to favor grievance procedures to settle disputes against employers.
Unlike the militancy of the old labor union, the move to a more conservative
union based on mediation procedures was a change that was to mark the
beginning of the end of the democratic union where each member had a voice.
With this transformation capitalists were also recognizing that the labor union
was to be a permanent part of American society and new ways must be secured
that would still allow for the rapid accumulation of wealth. It was now believed by
many labor industrialists that it was the responsibility of the government to
defend the rights of the rank and file workers. It became necessary that the labor
union align itself with a political party in order for their rights to be secure and
protected. The Democratic Party became synonymous with labor and, in the
eyes of many union members, was there to protect their rights as laborers.
However, this
alignment with a political party meant the labor union must
transform its old image, away from the strike frenzied militant organization
portrayed by the media, into an “advocacy” group, responsible for protecting its
members’ rights through mediation, legislation, and systemic manipulation of the
political machinery—despite the frustration of the labor union members
(Aronowitz, 1998, pp. 22-26).
The capitalists saw this as an opportunity to usher in a new type of
collective bargaining environment, one which would give them an upper hand.
32
Now, faced with the ever-mounting pressure against strike activity from the
government, the capitalists were able to get court issued injunctions and fines
against unions for “wildcat” strikes [wildcat strikes are strikes not officially backed
by the union organization] under the Taft-Hartley Act. This was a cause of great
stress on unions and threatened their very existence; the once heavily supported
activity of striking was now deeply discouraged.
At this time, with the new
approach toward collective bargaining, the emergence of an “elite” class of union
leadership that saw itself as needing to maintain a “new level of responsibilities to
maintain the status quo” was formed.
This new type of union leader set
precedence on having union members cooperate with management (probably to
avert strikes) by allowing the higher than normal production rates and changes in
work rules (Aronowitz, 1998, pp. 26).
Given the change of roles within the
division of labor of the unions most of the full-time union representatives, whom
in times past spent a great deal of their time organizing rank and file members,
now were left with the task of being the representatives of labor at grievance and
arbitration meetings, so that by 1953 union growth had peaked (Aronowitz, 1998,
pp. 27).
Along with the peak in growth and the transformation of operation of labor
unions came the merger of the AFL and the CIO in 1955. This merger was to
further distance the two predominant houses of labor (AFL and CIO) away from
their membership. It was following this merger that the system of the political
machinery of labor was to be furthered in its agenda of gaining the support of
political officials to achieve goals.
As Yates points out regarding one of the
33
philosophies of the early AFL-CIO—“In general, political policy is set by the AFLCIO’s national leadership and filters down to lower administrative levels” (Yates,
1998, pp. 89). Despite this trickle-down ideology held by the AFL-CIO, many of
the national unions were run autonomously and had their own political agenda,
including support for political candidates other than those endorsed by the AFLCIO. Notwithstanding its new policies, which distanced it from its allegiance of
national unions, the AFL-CIO still embraced the basic ideas which echoed the
demands of working rank and file members. The support of causes such as
increases in minimum wage, health coverage for all workers, the enactment of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the fair treatment of women and
minorities, were all core beliefs in the principles for which the AFL-CIO stood.
However, even with the appearance that unions still had their beliefs in the
advancement of worker’s rights, the reality was that the modern rank and file
union member had long lost his/her say in what was to take place in determining
the agenda of the union.
The labor leader had gone from having a status
inconsistency of a relatively low income, but occupying a position of great power
to the position of having both power and wealth (income). “The top officers were
very well paid, lived and associated with people of similar circumstances, and
seldom faced the risk of being unseated by insurgent forces” (Yates, 1998, pp.
140). The labor leader no longer rose from the rank and file, but rather were
members of a more elite group. The high ranking jobs in the union were now
positions of power and prestige and this stratification within the union structure
would begin to undermine its very raison d'etre. “Collective bargaining was a
34
highly centralized affair, far removed from the control of the workers, who seldom
participated in negotiations or even grievance processing” (Yates, 1998, pp.
140). The labor unions were beginning to follow the same formula of operational
bureaucracy first implemented by the very capitalist enterprises they opposed.
Contradictory to this theory however is the success of the UMWA under
the leadership of UMWA President John L. Lewis. Lewis ran “his” union very
autocratically and power within the bureaucratic structure was very centralized
with Lewis in control. When Lewis assumed control of the union in 1920 there
was a great deal of autonomy at the local level. To Lewis centralization of the
power structure mean survival of the union. This view was perpetuated by what
Lewis saw as the potential threat of economic and political competition between
various groups (locals) within the UMWA.
To alleviate this problem Lewis
instituted a policy that allowed him to place the locals in trusteeships. By doing
this he was able to effectively appoint district leaders of his choosing, thereby
instilling his ideologies in a progressive chain from the top of the union structure,
completely to the very active local unions (Perry, 1984, pp. 94).
According to Perry, “. . . by 1950, Lewis was able to gain virtually total
control over the governmental machinery of the union and to stifle the potential
for effective dissent within the union” (Perry, 1984, pp. 94). But dissent was
never fruitfully attempted in the union under the autocratic control of John L.
Lewis. This could be due to his overwhelmingly large support base of rank and
file members.
Lewis was held in high regard by the vast majority of union
members and was given control with little resistance to bargain on their behalf.
35
This relinquishment of control by the rank and file was most likely due to Lewis’
track record of meeting industry head-on during the 1930’s and 1940’s, and even
when necessary, confronting the federal government on behalf of the wishes of
his rank and file union membership.
This form of autocratic leadership was not to remain popular for long,
however, after Lewis’ handing over of the UMWA to Thomas Kennedy in 1960.
Kennedy, who was in poor health at the time of his transition to UMWA
President, was only in power for three years before his death. Tony Boyle, who
had been Vice President of the UMWA (under the appointment of Lewis), was
the predominant decision maker in the union during the Kennedy administration,
following the death of Kennedy, Boyle ascended to the top of UMWA control by
becoming the acting President of the UMWA without ever being voted in by rank
and file members.
This was to be one of the causes for the failure of the
autocratic bureaucracy—that under Lewis had thrived. Boyle, was not a very
well known member of the UMWA bureaucracy and he certainly did not have the
“track record” that afforded John L. Lewis the approval of rank and file
membership. Boyle, following in the legacy of Lewis, needed some basis on
which his legitimacy could be solidified, much as Lewis had done in the decades
prior.
This was to be the downfall of Boyle, Lewis had, over a period of decades,
built an autocratic union on a proven track record. Boyle lacked this track record
and shortly after his rise to the presidency was proven to be insensitive to rank
and file wishes in two areas:
Wages/Benefits and Safety/Health—areas that
36
under Lewis had shown prosperity. The autocratic union model which was built
under the Lewis administration and ran successfully on his (Lewis’) ability to
perform on behalf of the rank and file, was crumbling under Boyle. This condition
was inevitably creating a condition that would see not only the decline in the
UMWA, but also the breakdown of the autocratic bureaucracy (Perry, 1984, pp.
93-97).
This stratification within the labor unions created an ironic condition—rank
and file union members were beginning to feel a sense of bureaucratic alienation
from their own union. Rank and file union members now had little to no input in
democratically electing their representative leadership as they were typically
appointed rather than being chosen by their constituents—a common procedure
in earlier unions. Gone were any vehicles of due process which gave the union
membership a way to challenge the authority of their leadership if they deemed
necessary—corruption was inevitable. The UMWA, which had a long standing
history of pro-active organizing and sympathy to the concerns of its membership,
saw first-hand the possibilities of this corruption. “Jock” Yablonski, who was the
head of a reform party that challenged UMWA leadership, suffered a loss in a
controversial election. Following the election Yablonski filed a protest with the
U.S. Department of Labor alleging “election irregularities” that occurred prior to
the 1969 vote. Shortly after the election Tony Boyle hired three assassins, paid
from union accounts, to kill Yablonski and his family. On the night of December
31, 1969 the three men broke into Yablonski’s home killing him, his wife, and
daughter
37
(http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:PaIMWLlEDUEJ:groups.yahoo.com/grou
p/MineRescue/message/511+killed+jock+yablonski&hl=en&ie=UTF-8).
A movement within the UMWA was formed shortly after the death of
Yablonski; in 1970 rank and file members who were agitated with the lack of
recognition of their demands about health and safety in the mines, formed the
Miners for Democracy.
This movement was set on ousting then still active
UMWA President Tony Boyle (who would later be charged and convicted with
conspiracy in the murder of Yablonski). However, in 1971 the miners, led by
Boyle, had a new found militancy and successfully fought for higher wages. This
victory over wages was not enough to vindicate the murder of Jock Yablonski,
however, and during the court ordered election in 1972 Boyle was defeated by
the leader of the Miners for Democracy—Arnold Miller (Perry, 1984, pp. 97).
The movement of the Miners for Democracy was a movement based on a
belief that the current system in power was doing little to help the rank and file
members of society.
To understand why there was this split in the internal
mechanisms of the union it first becomes necessary to define union democracy.
Norris conceptualizes union democracy as, “a combination of a formal
democratic constitution and a vital political life (i.e., the existence of organized
opposition and active membership participation in the exercise of power)” (Norris,
1995, pp. 830). By Norris’ definition union democracy is what the UMWA and
other unions at this period in time were lacking. The UMWA under Tony Boyle
had strayed further from its ideological framework than the membership could
tolerate.
An example of the inability for the leadership to understand the
38
demands of their rank and file members can be illustrated in a 2001 interview
with Ken Hechler who was, in 1969, Congressman for the State of West Virginia.
Tony Boyle, was such a contrast with John L. Lewis, as everyone
recalled, it was on the issue of safety in the mines. Tony
Boyle’s appearance at the Farmington mine disaster which killed 78
miners at Consolidation, Inc. a mine in Farmington was very
upsetting to coal miners throughout the country. Boyle not only
indicated that disasters like that were always associated with
mining but he also indicated that Consolidation Coal Company was
one of the safest coal companies and always cooperative with the
United Mine Workers' concerns. This was very disturbing because it
was such a total contrast with John L. Lewis who always thundered
his opposition to those coal operators who perpetuated the unsafe
conditions in which miners worked.
The struggle for health and safety legislation began long before
Farmington. Many miners had been agitated for several years not
only by the unsafe conditions in the mines but the lack of any limits
on the coal dust which caused black lung. Three doctors were
leading the efforts to try to demonstrate that all this coal dust was
permanently debilitating. The three doctors were Donald
Rasmussen, a pulmonary specialist in Beckley, Dr. I.E. Buff, a
cardiologist in Charleston. And Dr. Hawey Wells, a pathologist.
All three of these doctors begin to organize meetings with the help
of VISTA workers to focus attention on the need for strong health
and safety legislation. These efforts received a huge shot in the
arm after the Farmington disaster which focused the attention of the
entire nation on these problems in the coal industry.
I received a telephone call from Sarah Kaznoski asking me if I
would come to Farmington to meet with the widows who had lost
their husbands. I thought the meeting was primarily to enable me to
console these widows but when I arrived they asked me a number
of questions such as, "Why don’t you as a Congressman do
something to insure that our husbands did not die in vain and also
get Congress to”act to protect both the health and safety of all coal
miners". I asked them if they would help by coming to Washington
at my expense to lobby members of the House and Senate as well
as officials charged with regulating safety and to urge Congress to
take action to put a ceiling on the amount of coal dust in the mines
and to compensate miners who became afflicted with black lung.
They agreed and on a number of occasions I paid the expenses for
39
a large number of widows who were very effective in getting this
message to members of Congress who came from non-coalmining
districts.
The miners themselves began to organize. Meetings became
increasingly larger. For example, early in 1969 over 6000 miners
attended a rally at the Charleston Civic Center demanding action.
I introduced the first bill in Congress to put a strict ceiling on the
amount of coal dust in the mines of 3 mg per cubic meter, later to
be reduced to 2 mg per cubic meter and to provide compensation
to those who already had black lung.
The United Mine Workers leadership urged me to separate these
objectives into two bills, one for health and one for safety and then
to work only for the safety bill and to abandon the efforts to pass
the bills to protect the health of miners. I disagreed with this and
insisted that now was the time to strike while the iron was hot and
to go for the more stringent safety and health provisions in one
law. At this point the UMW began to denounce me and urge their
members not to follow my advice.
The miners themselves supported my position and in the spring of
1969, 40,000 coal miners from West Virginia went on a wildcat
strike against the United Mine Workers defying Tony Boyle who
ordered that they should return to work. At the same time the three
doctors were stepping up their agitation for action by both the State
Legislature and Congress
Ken Hechler on Heath and Safety in mines
(http://www.appalachianpower.com/ken%20hechler.htm)
Of course, the UMWA was not the only union that had begun to loose
contact with their membership. The climate within the structure of the unions
was clearly suffering. Rank and file members were beginning to feel that their
leadership did not support the causes which they felt were just.
Corruption
became analogous with unions after Jimmy Hoffa took control of the Teamsters
and began centralizing the power structure.
This new centralized power
structure created by Hoffa did not allow for the old routine ways of expression
40
through democratic means any higher than the local union level.
The
relationship with organized crime was arguably no where more visible in any
industrial labor union than it was with the Teamsters under the leadership of
Jimmy Hoffa. As Moody expounds “Hoffa did not just build a more centralized
bureaucratic union, he created an alliance with organized crime and other
Teamster leaders tied to it.” (Moody, 1984, pp. 230).
Membership in these unions had already stabilized and the postwar
economic boom was beginning to dwindle. Now, the elite union leadership as
well as the AFL-CIO was still calling for a position of bargaining with
management. The capitalist class recognized the disassociation of the rank and
file from the union leadership and had started a campaign to undermine
organizational loyalties.
Despite workers earning decent wages and having
better working conditions employers were still advocating higher productivity and
giving less and less control to their employees over their work environment.
Labor’s alliance with the Democratic Party was also proving to be detrimental to
the overall strength and success of labor unions from the 1970’s to present.
Labor was intrinsically tied to the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party
was intrinsically tied to corporate funding. Nearly all unions had shifted away
from their mass organizing drives where new recruitment meant a stronger union,
and instead, in an almost arrogant denial of responsibility, some union leaders
blamed the unorganized for their own condition (Yates, 1998, pp. 141). Table 3
gives an illustration into the historic trend of the decline of union density followed
by the decline of membership in labor unions.
41
Table 3
Labor Union Membership and Density from 1934-2002
(Approximations)
Density
Membership
(persons)
1934-1954
1954-1979
1979-2002
Increase from
12%-33%
Decrease from
33%-23%
Decrease from
23%-13%
Increase from 3
million to 16
million
Increase 16
million to 21
million
Decrease 21
million to 15
million
(Source- Lerner. Three Steps To Reorganizing And Rebuilding The Labor
Movement. 2002).
This lack of focus on mobilization was a predominant factor for a social
climate in which the union becomes less effective.
Much like the earlier
exclusionary practices of the AFL, the modern industrial labor unions had lost
focus, away from their core potential adherents—the exploited. According to
Georg Lukács, an early twentieth century sociologist, the proletariat has the
ability to achieve a true class consciousness and as it begins to gain this, the
bourgeoisie shifts to a defensive condition (Ritzer, 2000, pp. 138). While there
was obvious exploitation occurring in the workplace, the modern labor union had
became too bureaucratized to properly represent those that were members, but
also managed to exclude a new potentially explosive element of membership that
was even more exploited than its current members.
42
Considering a labor union as a form of a social movement in the sense
that it has a set of goals (although ever changing) and would fit under what
Garner terms as a reformative social movement (Garner, 1996, pp. 20-21) there
must be some causal relationship of a union’s success and their ability to
effectively organize a base of adherents (members). According to Oegema, “The
more individuals who believe that a specific movement can effectively mobilize to
redress shared grievances, and the more serious these grievances are, the
higher the generalized action preparedness for this movement” (Oegema as
quoted in McAdam, 1997, pp. 175). Therefore, with the exclusionary practices
that many unions had adopted, they began not only to isolate their base of
potential supporters but also damaged their legitimacy within American society.
American society’s view on the labor union has now shifted somewhat, in
what could be argued as blinding false consciousness, or possibly just the
satisfaction of their current socioeconomic condition. Many Americans have
come to view labor unions as useless relics of a time that has come and gone.
Recently, an article in The Charleston Gazette argued that the presence of the
UAW (United Auto Workers) at the Toyota Motors plant in Buffalo, West Virginia
would indeed be detrimental to the condition of the workers at that location. In
fact, the article presents a perplexing view of the lack of representation
mentioned earlier. Her complaint with unionization is that her husband, who is an
member in standing with the USW (United Steelworkers), has a much higher
degree of exploitation at his union job, than does she working at the currently
43
non-union Toyota Motors plant
(http://www.wvgazette.com/section/Editorials/2003110713).
Chapter 6: Conclusion
It has become apparent that the structure of unionization within American
culture has changed drastically in the past century. Society must change and
along with that change the institutions, ideologies, and social structure must
conform to those changes. Labor unions are no exception and are not exempted
from the rule of social change. There are many arguments about the why and
why not of labor unions, only a fraction of which are presented in this paper. It
would be far too demanding to list all possible conditions under which unions
prosper and equally as difficult to list those in which they fail to achieve the goals
of the working class which they represent. Instead the objective of this thesis
was to, by using a historical analysis of American society, emphasize conditions
that are both favorable as well as unfavorable to unionization by investigation of
some of the historical highlights in the struggle between the working class and
the capitalist class.
To conclude this analysis it may be productive to refer to some of the most
widespread arguments about the reason for the decline in both the power and
membership of modern American labor unions. To assume that unionization in
America is dead would be a fallacy of the highest order. However, there will be a
likely period of continued inactivity for various reasons.
44
First, simply put, many Americans do not see the necessity for labor
unions in America.
It is a common belief that the government has enough
controls in place in our capitalist economic system that a union would be of little,
if any, benefit. This would call attention to Marx’s original theory that a class of
people would only gain a true class consciousness, thereby realizing their true
place on the “ladder”, when exploitation was at it highest.
Secondly, government has not been friendly to labor in the years following
the Second World War. Many amendments have been added to the Wagner Act
which makes it much more difficult to effectively organize union members and
conduct typical union operations (i.e., strikes). These laws have castrated the
labor union in that it now must take bureaucratic action to settle disputes which
are quite often very time consuming as well as costly.
Third, the embracing of technology has been a burden on the entire
system of labor. With automation many occupations typically held by men and
women in society have been replaced by machinery. This automation led to a
structural transformation of society from a predominantly industrial economy to a
service oriented society which again has had an impact on unionization. The
change to a “global market place” has created a climate that makes successful
prosecution of corporations that are in violation of labor laws nearly
unenforceable.
Globalization allows the capitalist class to manufacturer
commodities with the greatest amount of surplus value.
By shifting their
industrial base to the least industrialized nations it is possible for corporations to
exploit the lack of safety, health, wage, and environmental laws. Quite often
45
while using local government officials and the military as agents of social control
to prevent the organizing of the highly exploited workforce.
All of these conditions, which led to an unfavorable environment for
unionization, were in part, the result of the inadequacies of the unions
themselves. When the unions shifted away from their democratic roots where
each member had a voice, to a more centralized bureaucratic entity, there was a
substantial loss of power and influence. The move toward the less radical unions
effectively strained relationship with members.
With their membership disgruntled and unsure of their position within the
union (the alienation concept) it was feasible that there would be less activity on
the part of union members and conversely the union as well. Therefore, without
an active membership that was able to challenge threats to the rank and file, it
became easier for the aforementioned conditions to be thrust upon society.
Passage of acts such as NAFTA, introduction of machinery designed to replace
the laborer, and to some degree the enactment of legislation designed to benefit
the capitalist class, could have likely been prevented if labor unions would have
taken pro-active approach to letting the rank and file union members voice their
concerns; that is, after all, the true meaning of a union.
To elaborate on the future of labor unions within American society is
speculation at best; however, the indicators that would justify the need for labor
unions do resonate soundly with society. The polarization of wealth that keeps
increasing year-after-year is one of those indicators. This disproportion of wealth
in American society could be a possible rallying point for labor unions in the
46
future. First, however, unions must change their modus operandi and focus on
organizing workers within the service sector. With the structural transformation
from an industrial economy to a service economy, an entire group of workers
exists with no union representation. This potential resource, when tapped, could
once again propel labor unions into the mainstream, regaining their prominence
within American culture and establishing a renewed apparatus that would once
again give the masses a voice of opposition to the capitalist elite.
Union: Something that is made one: something formed by a
combining or coalition of parts or members: as a: a confederation of
independent individuals (as nations or persons) for some common
purpose
Definition of union as provided in:
Meriam-Webster Dictionary.
47
References
Aronowitz, Stanley. 1998. From the Ashes of the Old: American Labor and
America’s Future. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. New York.
Bain, Brian. The NLRB: The Wagner Act of 1935. University of St. Francis.
http://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/wagner.htm.
Baldwin, Robert E. June 2003. The Decline of US Labor Unions and the Role of
Trade. Institute for International Economics. Washington, D.C.
Barlett, Donald L. and Steele, James B. 1992. America: What Went Wrong?
Andrews and McMeel. A Universal Press Syndicate Company. Kansas
City.
Brecher, Jeremy and Costello, Tim. 1998. Global Village or Global Pillage.
Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom Up. Second Edition. South
End Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Brisbin, Richard A., Jr. 2002. A Strike Like No Other Strike.
Law
and
Resistance During the Pittston Coal Strike of 1989-1990. The Johns
Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland.
Author Unknown. 2001. Coal Mining in Appalachia: The Federal Coal Mine
Health and Safety Act of 1969. West Virginia. http://216.239.41.104/
search?q=cache:HVhJZnp7RMJ:www.appalachianpower.com/ken%252
0hechler.htm.+kille+jock+yablonski&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.
Corbin, David Alan. 1997. The West Virginia Mine Wars: An Anthology.
Appalachian Edition. Martinsburg, WV.
Creswell, John W. 2003. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches.
Second Edition.
Sage Publications, Inc.
California.
Ewen, Lynda Ann. 1998. Social Stratification and Power in America.
Hall, Inc. Dix Hills, New York.
General
Fantasia. Rick. From Class Consciousness to Culture, Action, and Social
Organization. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 21 (1995), 269-287.
Garner, Roberta. 1996. Contemporary Movements and Ideologies. McGrawHill, Inc. New York.
48
Goldner, Loren. 1989. A Critique of Kim Moody’s an Injury to All.
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Elrgoldner/moodyII.html.
Author Unknown. GPUSA National Green Program. Labor. The Green Party
USA. Illinois. http://www.greenparty.org/program/labor.html.
Author Unknown. John L. Lewis Defies Truman. The Heroism Project.
http://www.heroism.org/class/1940/lewis.htm.
Kamolnick, Paul. 1988. Classes: A Marxist Critique. General Hall, Inc.
York.
New
Kimeldorf, Howard and Stepan-Norris, Judith. Historical Studies of Labor
Movements In the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 18
(1992), 495-517.
Laurie, Clayton D. The United States Army and the Return to Normalcy in Labor
Dispute Interventions: The Case of the West Virginia Coal Mine Wars,
1920-1921.
http://www.geocities.com/MadisonAvenue/Boardroom/4278/wvh.htm.
Lee, Howard, B. 1969. Bloodletting in Appalachia. The Story of West Virginia’s
Four Major Mine Wars and Other Thrilling Incidents. Morgantown, West
Virginia.
Lerner, Stephen. 2002. Three Steps To Reorganizing And Rebuilding The
Labor
Movement.
Labor
Notes.
http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2002/12/e.html
Levine, Rhonda F. and Lembcke, Jerry. 1987. Recapturing Marxism.
An
Appraisal of Recent Trends in Sociological Theory. Praeger Publishers.
New York.
Marot, Helen. 2001. American Labor Unions: Violence. New York.
http://www.boondocksnet.com/editions/marot/marot14.html.
Marx, Karl, Engels, Friedrick and Malia, Martin E.
Manifesto. Signet.
1998.
The Communist
McAdam, Doug and Snow, David A. 1997. Social Movements. Readings on
Their Emergence, Mobilization, and
Dynamics. Roxbury Publishing
Co. California.
Mills, C. Wright. 1948. The New Men Of Power. America’s Labor
University of Illinois Press. Chicago.
49
Leaders.
Moody, Kim. 1988.
Michigan.
Author
An Injury to All.
The Decline of American Unionism.
Unknown.
The
National
Labor
http://home.earthlink.net/~local1613/nlra.html.
Relations
Act.
Patterson, Lawrence. Three Ring Circus. University of Denver.
http://www.du.edu/~lpatters/labor.html.
Parenti, Michael. 1998. America Besieged. City Lights Books. San Francisco,
California.
Perry, Charles. 1984. Collective Bargaining and the Decline of the United Mine
Workers. Industrial Research Unit.
University of Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
Real Estate Center. U.S. Census Bureau Population Studies 1900-2000.
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popmd/pm6280.htm.
Reutter, Mark.
2000.
Taft-Hartley Strike – Breaking Power a Political
Anachronism.
University
of
Illinois.
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/biztips/00/09tafthartley.html
Ridener, Larry R. 1999. Sociologists’ Index. Radford University.
http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/INDEX.HTML#marx.
Ritzer, George. 2000. Modern Sociological Theory. Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill
Higher Education. Boston.
Sayles, Leonard and Strauss, George. 1953. The Local Union. Revised Edition.
Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc. New York.
Sklar, Holly. 1995. Chaos or Community? Seeking Solutions, Not Scapegoats
for Bad Economics. South End Press. Boston.
Steel, Edward M. Mother Jones in the Fairmont Field, 1902. The Journal of
American History. Vol. 57, No. 2 (Sept., 1970), 290-307.
Stepan-Norris, Judith and Zeitlin, Maurice.
Union Democracy, Radical
Leadership, and The Hegemony of Capital. American Sociological
Review, Vol. 60, No. 6
(Dec.,1995), 829-850.
Trotter, Joe William, Jr. 1990. Coal, Class, and Color. Blacks in Southern West
Virginia 1915-1932. University of Illinois Press. Urbana and Chicago.
50
United States Census. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov.
Woods, Robert. Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx. University of Nevada.
http://www.honors.unr.edu/~rwoods/wt202/smith.html.
Yates, Michael D. 1998. Why Unions Matter. Monthly Review Press. New
York.
Zieger, Robert H. The CIO and Industrial Unionism in America. Research
Collections in Labor Studies. University of Florida.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Al/CIOIndustrialUnionism.asp.
Zinn, Howard. 1995. A People’s History of the United States 1492-Present.
Harper-Collins Publishers. New York, NY.
51