A Literature Review No. II

Paul Nehru Tennassee*

Manning Marble, in examining, “The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945-1950, in the context of Race/Reform/Rebellion has argued that the massive struggles for desegregation and civil rights were essentially waged by black workers. (2) He also claims that the movement for change had two tendencies. One left and the other right. The representatives of the right included Young, Wilkins, Randolph and others of the middle class. His view was that desegregation carried out in a manner that maintained “private capital accumulation” permitted the ratification of federal legislation. This perpetuated racism as the “systemic exploitation of black labor power and the political and cultural hegemony of capital’s interests over black labor…” It also accommodated the interests of the African American middle class who got “absorbed into marginal levels of affluence in both the private sector and the government…” The rightist desegregationist forces supported this project. They were also anti-Communist who never sought the termination of the capitalist system. “As integrationist, they simply desired an “equal opportunity” to compete within society and the labor force, without the debilitating restrictions of caste.” He also claimed that the African American rightists were opposed to the black nationalists who advocated that: blacks should concentrate on their own numbers into a power bloc which would demand structural changes in the racists, capitalist order.”

He highlighted that A. Philip Randolph, throughout the 1960’s had increasingly moved to the right and had terminated his criticisms of the AFL-CIO union bureaucracy. At an AFL-CIO convention in San Francisco, he declared that the racial problem was no longer a major issue within the labor movement. He later resigned as President of the Negro American Labor Council and called on his colleagues to end criticisms of white union officials. This was in a background in which two and a half million blacks were members of the AFL-CIO, gradually many unions removed their anti-black restrictions while the UAW and labor movement supported desegregation and civil rights. Inspite of all the reforms, Marble pointed out, that “Randolph’s original goals of creating an effective and powerful presence for blacks inside the House of Labor were not realized.”

Marble cited the emergence of many independent black workers’ organizations and strikes to support his thesis that racism and discrimination prevailed in the labor movement inspite of reform. He claimed that blacks were the lowest paid and given the most dangerous jobs. Within the steelworkers’ union, not a single black leader served as an officer in its 30 districts. Less than 100 black employees were hired among union staff members. He also cites impressive statistics in the carpenter and construction unions to confirm a racist and discriminatory pattern. He concluded that in the midst of the reformist changes and advances in the civil rights movement, the “struggle for biracial democracy and equality was still blocked by racist resistance and a deliberate policy of white supremacy fostered by most American trade union leaders.” Consequently, he argued, African American workers influenced by Black Power begun to fight union racism through the creation of their own unions. Between 1968-1972, over twelve independent black worker organizations were established. “In September 1967, a group of revolutionary black nationalists and independent black Marxists launched a militant black worker’s newspaper, “Inner City Voice.” The key activists behind this effort, was Marxist attorney, Ken Cockrel. Mike Hamlin.....soon developed extensive organizational ties with rank and file black autoworkers and Detroit’s growing black working class. In the spring of 1968, these radical black workers and intellectuals created the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM)......DRUM attacked management’s plant “speed-ups”, racist hiring policies......unequal pay between black and white laborers... Within a year, other black workers’ labor organizations developed along DRUM’s model...”

The UAW’s response to these developments were best expressed by its secretary treasurer when he responded, “a handful of fanatics....black fascists....actions are an attempt to destroy this union...” Another official union ran up against black workers militancy. On this occasion, black workers protested to white ILA officials against segregated locals and racist job referrals policy. Under Title Seven of the Civil Rights Act, a grievance was taken to court. ILA lawyers explained that their locals were “separate but equal.” The court ruled in favor of the black workers.

Marble attributes the rise of independent black workers organizations to one radical tendency of the Black Power Movement, which was inspired by Stokley Carmicheal, SNCC radicals and Malcolm X. However, he admits that Black Power Movement, which was a euphemism for Black Nationalism, also had a rightist tendency. Those who sought radical structural change and those who pursued black capitalism. He quoted the Black Muslim, Malcolm X to make his point, “you can’t have capitalism without racism, and if you find anti-racist, usually they are socialists or their political philosophy is socialism.” The leaders of the Black Power Movement were attacked by African American reformist leaders both in the Labor and the Civil Rights Movement.

Michael Goldfield’s, “The Decline of Organized Labor in the United States”, underlines a number of factors, which explain the labor movement’s attitude towards black workers. (3) In part, the author views the policy and contradictions of the movement in this area as partly responsible for its decline since it did not contribute to working class solidarity. Particularly, since he upholds the position that, “while the development of unions may be a natural product of capitalist development, their fate, however, is also the product of ongoing class struggle.”

Goldfield blames both the Trade Union Movement and the left for having failed to address the race problem effectively before and after the Second World War. He identifies the failure to organize the South in a timely manner as being responsible for the consolidation of a “political and economic bastion of reaction”, which provided cheap labor and wages less than union wages. He argues that, the CIO, which had emerged as the most progressive of the trade unions, had failed to organize the South before the Second World War and when “Operations Dixie” finally got underway, it failed for a number of reasons. He listed the following: the internal struggle between the left and the right in the CIO; the communist versus anti-Communist conflicts; the CIO’s purge of its competent and seasoned staff; and the struggle between the AFL and the CIO. He also highlighted a number of interrelated factors which included: the unwillingness of the CIO and the left to confront the black question fully and to demand “equality for blacks, a prerequisite for unity within the labor force”; the communist party’s abandonment of its 1920’s and 1930’s emphasis in fighting racial discrimination and dissolution of its independent work in the South in search of a broader coalition; unwillingness of the left and right in the CIO to upset the Roosevelt’s coalition which included the Dixiecrats. Goldfield clarified that there were a number of other important factors, which should not be minimized. These included the conservatism of the working class, particularly the racial prejudices of whites; the development of the cold war characterized by the rise of anti-communism and its equation with patriotism; the intensive government repression of the left and liberals.

Finally, Goldfield credits the major disruptions in sit-ins and ghetto rebellions by blacks as a crucial causal factor in the achievement of major social legislation’s, which the unions had on their agenda for quite some time. During the 1970’s, he claims, “the black and non-white minorities have become increasingly more organized than white workers.” He mentions that there are opinions afloat that blacks might be more resistant to union organizations due to racial discrimination and that blacks have been identified as strike breakers. In passing, he mentions that a number of black organizations emerged in the auto industry but their life spans were short.

“American Workers, American Unions 1920-1985,” by Robert H. Zieger, discusses the Trade Union Movement’s ups and downs in dealing with the race problem in specific relation to the African American worker. (4) The author demonstrating some degree of sympathy for the unions in the light of severe criticisms concludes with the reflection of two union activists who point out “blacks have won more influence in unions than in any other social institution.” The author shares the view that the singling out of the Trade Union Movement for criticism reflects a class bias. He pointed out that during the 1950’s and 1960’s, the AFL-CIO failed to compel some of its affiliates to stop discriminatory and segregation practices. However, by the early 1960’s, only a few unions upheld formal racist positions. At that said time, critics argue that the leadership of the AFL-CIO were much swifter in dealing with communist infiltration than the constitutional bars of unions to black membership, “de facto patterns of exclusion from favored jobs, and maintenance of segregated locals and lines of seniority drew only endless palaver and pious declarations of good intentions.” It was also pointed out that when A. Philip Randolph raised the race problem at an AFL-CIO Convention, George Meany ridiculed him by asking, “Who the hell appointed you as the guardian of all Negroes in America.”

Zieger underlines that by the 1960’s the African American workers constituted one quarter of the AFL-CIO membership. There were sizable membership in the UAW, Steelworkers and government unions. Inspite of this, there was no black on the Executive Boards of the unions. Consequently, a group of black activists formed the Negro American Labor Council (NALC). Randolph was the first Chairman. Increasingly, NALC became a forum of criticisms of white trade union leadership. This led to Randolph’s resignation in 1966 since he feared it would jeopardize his commitment to the integration of black workers into the AFL-CIO. The organization later evaporated but reflected the restiveness of the African American workers. Zieger points out that even though trade union leadership did not understand “the rage and desperation that swept through black America”, there were a number of progressive positions taken in response to black concerns. The official Labor Movement participated in the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington and supported the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Inspite of this, within the highest leadership of the union, there was growing resentment on the issue of race. Randolph, the lone black member, on the executive, was censored for public critical comments. The liberal members of the leadership like Reuther and others did not lend him support. This was interpreted by NALC leadership as a “show of power to demonstrate to Negro union members that they represent nothing when it comes to setting policies.....even though they pay dues.” The progressive UAW did not have a black representative on its board. Calls for a seat for a black representative was resisted until finally a provision was made. Black workers often commented that Reuther’s “speech in Washington in 1963, did not match his practice in Detroit. He is willing to integrate anything outside his union.”

Zieger also highlights the formation of many independent black organizations including the umbrella League of Revolutionary Black Workers but concludes that the “deflation of the civil rights movement and the general national impatience with the radical rhetoric that seemed so threatening and half-persuasive in the late 60’s isolated the remaining handful of militants.”