After the introduction of the
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the labor movement took on a radical transformation
as large union federations like the CIO were forced to reevaluate their
membership and their role as a union supporter.
The Taft-Hartley law was a response to the 1946 general strike, and was
passed by a conservative congress not long after the events had winded down. President Harry Truman attempted to veto the act
however, his decision was overturned by the same congress. Specifically the act mandated that all trade
union leaders must sign an oath against communism, which in turn had a radical
effect on the way the CIO addressed its members and approached the subject of
communism. In the long term, the act was
designed as an anti-communist buffer which would slowly weed out radical sects
within the labor movement by forcing union leaders to concede to certain political
and social demands. In the short run it
was a well orchestrated charade in the midst of the Red Scare. We can see the differences in ideological
approach during this time by looking at two ideologically opposed newspapers,
the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Worker.
The result of the Taft-Hartley law was the violent split of the CIO into
right and left wings, each boldly defending their beliefs; and both the Daily
Worker and the LA Times succeed in presenting the material for each respective
side. Quickly during the year of 1949
and early 1950, the CIO began to purge its’ left wing. As we look into how each narrative is
constructed about the CIO purges, we see that the LA Times embodies the ideals
of middle class Americans who still see Communism as a ‘red menace’, while the
Daily Worker promotes the ideologically enforced socialist attitude with
emphasis on the might of the working class people.
The
two newspapers used in this analysis have the opposing character needed for
such a critical examination of differing ideologies and differing societal
goals. In June of 1949 the Los Angeles
Times featured an article explaining how a CIO member, Max Perlow, had
officially announced his resignation from the Communist Party however,
explicitly states that he did it only to follow the law and avoid persecution.[1] The LA Times was very open about actions
taken which did not actually get rid of communist ideology within the CIO. Another article by LA Times Editor Joseph
Park highlighted this trait by stating that unionism itself is of ‘communist
influence’ and that “non-radical Marxists are and can be just as destructive as
militant communists.”[2] These early 1949 articles clearly show the
attitudes present in the LA Times’ editorial staff, and the majority of
articles which featured a critique on communism or the Communist Party
typically labeled the groups collectively as ‘Reds’.
The
Daily Worker portrayed a much different perspective on the CIO purges. Published by the Communist Party, the Daily
Worker embodied the traditions of most Comintern-based political organizations. Focusing on the lives of workers during this
era, the Daily Worker presented the purge as a movement by a specific sect
within the CIO, namely its bureaucratic right-wing leadership.[3] Throughout the purging era, the Worker had
continued a special article section titled ‘The Truth About the CIO Unions on
Trial’, which attempted to guide the knowledge for working-class individuals searching
for idealistic understandings of the ongoing crisis. Using the excuse that the CIO’s right wing
exists merely due to the early support of the left wing and all the workers
during the 1940s, the Daily Worker sided with the entire working class; pointing
to CIO leader Philip Murray as the instigator and asserting that “it is not the
Union who has changed” rather, it was the leadership.[4] The primary distinction between the two
newspapers is thus cause of the purge, guided by opposing interpretations of
society’s ultimate goal. Now we will
actually look into specific opposing articles on certain parts of the CIO’s
purge.
Early
in February 1949, the LA Times featured an article which set the stage for the
next few months, and kept labor-minded individuals clung to headlines. Entitled, ‘CIO to launch Red Mop-up’, the
Times was preparing to highlight the CIO’s purge of its own unions over the
next few months.[5] Clearly indicating its impartiality, the
article’s usage of ‘Reds’ made the public aware of which side the Times’
editors were batting for. Not left out
of the loop for long, the Daily Worker responded quickly by calling the purge a
“20th century Uncle Tom”, a hypocrisy orchestrated by the right-wing
leaders of the CIO and sanctioned by the United States government.[6] These two articles were the first to mention
the purge, and the differences between their perspectives never varied much
over the next 12 months. Later, in
November of the same year, the Times published another article which announced
the aspects of the purge itself titled ‘CIO to Document Left-Wing Purge’, and
listed the areas of the CIO which it had been investigating.[7] This article was unique because it hinted at
the idea that those unions who end up purged might form a 3rd labor
federation led by the United Electrical Workers, one of the most radical sects
within the CIO.
In
May of 1949, the CIO began its effort to ‘clean’ up the federation by removing
the radical sects and unions who supported ‘socialist beliefs’, a term used
very vaguely. The CIO first targeted the
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers union. The LA Times approaches this purge with very
little radicalism, stating that the CIO is entitled to “a stronger trade union
built on being an important, well respected part of our American democratic
system.”[8] In this way the CIO leadership is tying the
ideology of ‘Americanism’ to the principals on Unionism. Seeing this type of reference in the Times is
not abnormal, prior to the late 1950s the newspaper did a lot of effort to tie
Americanism into its own ideals.[9] The Daily Worker, however, approaches the
policy as the first use of the Taft-Hartley act by the CIO to enforce “Truman
Loyalty.”[10] Focusing more on the effects felt by workers
in this situation, the Daily Worker highlighted how employees and union members
were given ten days to consider their options or lose their jobs.[11] What we see here is a clear distinction
between how both news sources approach a given labor study. The LA Times is short and to the point,
explaining the corporate decision to clean up their federation in accord with
American idealism; while the Daily Worker expressed directly the effects of
this CIO proposition on the workers.
These opposing approaches are what characterize most of the differences
between smaller articles on similar subjects at the time.
By
January of 1950 the purges had spread across all the left wings of the CIO,
orchestrated by CEO Philip Murray. Seen
as a mid-century ‘Andrew Carniage’, both the CPUSA and the Daily Worker had
little faith in Murray’s leadership and never attempted to portray him as an
ally of the working class. The Worker showed
Murray as a conservative unionist, one who believed that many of the left wing
sectors of the CIO were in league with the Communist Party of the United States
of America (CPUSA).[12] At the end of January, Murray was pushing the
purge to the entire California Charter, whom he felt had allied itself directly
with CPUSA. The Daily Worker explains
this as merely a “continuation of the political purge launched by the right
wing”[13],
and says it was justified by the national CIO’s adoption of new rules aimed
specifically at orchestrating a purge of certain ‘undesirables’.[14] Here the Worker is accusing the CIO’s
leadership of corruption, something many workers at the time had considered
about their own unions but never really saw it in action. The LA Times on the other hand, focused its
article on the resistance led by the California Charter and, primarily, the
United Electrical Workers. They label
the California wing of the CIO explicitly as communist and emphasize workers’
resistance to organized cooperation.[15] This shows the differences in partisanship to
the subject by both sources; while the Daily Worker looks at coercion and
internal corruption within the National CIO, the LA Times looks at the
resistance by the California CIO and suggests that this resistance is proof of
undesired activities.
Near
the end 1949 and the beginning of January 1950, the biggest headlines from both
the Times and the Worker were fixated on the development of the strike put
forth by the United Mine Workers. The LA
Times had been covering the issue for a few months, but the Daily Workers’
publication of the article ‘Truman Threatens Miners’ really embodied the
socialist interpretation of Taft-Hartley injunctions. Using the federal government and union official
John L. Lewis as the leaders of this anti-labor action, the Daily Worker explains
the outcome of the strike as a movement demanding proper negotiations between
union leaders and management.[16] Specifically, the Worker states that blame
was placed on the union itself by President Truman, rather than on
workers. This is unique because the
Worker stated the government, specifically the President, blamed the labor
movement itself rather than the unjust feelings of a few mine workers. The LA Times’ article, published slightly
before the Worker’s, frames the UMW’s strike as damaging to both business and
social infrastructure. Mentioning very
little about the plight of mine workers during their strike, the LA Times
seemed to focus on the societal handicaps caused by strikes rather than address
ways to avoid them.[17] It is quite clear at this point that the
Worker shares the attitudes of the working class as a whole, whereas the LA
Times shares the perspectives of most average middle-classed Americans.
After
the mining incident, mining executive Howard Young took it upon himself to ask
congress for aid in avoiding another large strike. This article, featured in the LA Times, spoke
directly to middle class Americans in a language that avoided working-class grievances. Placing the strike’s blame directly on “communist
infiltration”, Howard Young demands a new, stricter version of the Taft-Hartley
Act in order to ensure that no “more” infiltration takes place.[18] The article also quotes Howard as labeling
the entire CIO as “communist dominated”, making it appear as if no level of
sanctions will be satisfactory for neither the Union movement nor its leaders.[19] Remarkably the Worker says nothing about
Howard’s statements. The article by the
Times was published in late February, however the Worker says nothing more about
the workers’ strike until late June.
However this could mean something even more important, that the Worker
was not interested in catering to the words or advice of the
business/managerial class. Something
very characteristic of socialist literature, the omitting of certain
perspectives aided the newspaper in framing its articles along a specific
ideological intent.
Ultimately
the purging of the CIO caused many hardships on both management and the working
class. Management was forced to watch as
unions carried out a government-sanctioned ‘clean up’ of their own
organizations, while many working class families were uprooted by accusations
of radicalism. The two opposing
newspapers, the Daily Worker and the Los Angeles Times, did a good job at providing
a two-sided look into specific events during the purge. What we find after looking at these events is
that the Worker is strongly sided with the labor movement and working class
individuals; while the LA Times is more ambiguous about its audience but frames
its articles in a fashion that most middle class Americans would
understand. Both sources however, do a
very good job at trying to display the audience of the other as the main
problems instigating the purges. By
looking at both sources though, one can determine for themselves which side of
the story fits them while at the same time can learn about their opposing
ideology’s interpretations. Looking at
opposing sources is an excellent way to broaden ones understanding of a
specific socio-political conflict, and also helps us remember where our history
actually comes from.
Bibliography
Berry, Abner. "CIO Right-Wingers Spawn a 20th
Century Uncle Tom." The Daily Worker March 1949: 2.
"California CIO
Defies Murray Ouster Order." The Los Angeles Times 31 January
1950: 8.
"CIO Radio Union
Purge Indicated." The Los Angeles Times 2 May 1949: A2.
"CIO to Document
Left-Wing Purge." The Los Angeles Times 6 November 1949: 2.
"CIO to Launch
Red 'Mop Up' in LA." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1949: 32.
"CIO Union
Officer Quits Communists." The Los Angeles Times 6 June 1949: 32.
"Congress Aid
Asked Against Labor Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950:
32.
Cooper, Ruby.
"Big Firm Orders Worker Purge." The Daily Worker 15 May 1949:
1.
"The Truth about the CIO Unions on
Trial." The Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2.
"Lewis Orders
100,000 Back to Work." The Los Angeles Times 1 January 1950: 1.
"Murray Revokes
Charter of California CIO Council." The Daily Worker 25 January
1950: 1.
Park, Joseph.
"Communist Purges May be just Marxian Civil Wars." The Los
Angeles Times 29 May 1949: A4.
"Truman Threatens
Miners." The Daily Worker 26 January 1950: 1.
[1] "CIO Union Officer Quits Communists." The
Los Angeles Times 6 June 1949: 32
[2] Park, Joseph. "Communist Purges May be just
Marxian Civil Wars." The Los Angeles Times 29 May 1949: A4
[3] "The Truth about the CIO Unions on Trial." The
Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2
[4] "The Truth about the CIO Unions on Trial." The
Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2
[5] "CIO to Launch Red 'Mop Up' in LA." The
Los Angeles Times 20 February 1949: 32
[6] Berry, Abner. "CIO Right-Wingers Spawn a 20th
Century Uncle Tom." The Daily Worker March 1949: 2
[7] "CIO to Document Left-Wing Purge." The
Los Angeles Times 6 November 1949: 2
[8] "CIO Radio Union Purge Indicated." The
Los Angeles Times 2 May 1949: A2
[9]
Wikipedia.org
[10]
Cooper, Ruby. "Big Firm Orders Worker
Purge." The Daily Worker 15 May 1949: 1
[11]
Ibid
[12]
"Murray Revokes Charter of California CIO
Council." The Daily Worker 25 January 1950: 1
[13]
Ibid
[14]
Ibid
[15]
"California CIO Defies Murray Ouster
Order." The Los Angeles Times 31 January 1950: 8
[16]
"Truman Threatens Miners." The
Daily Worker 26 January 1950: 1
[17]
"Lewis Orders 100,000 Back to Work." The
Los Angeles Times 1 January 1950: 1
[18]
"Congress Aid Asked Against Labor
Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950: 32
[19]
"Congress Aid Asked Against Labor
Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950: 32
No comments:
Post a Comment