Gordon Haskell Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From Labor Action, Vol. 13 No. 50, 12 December 1949, pp. 1 & 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Some four hundred delegates gathered in Philadelphia during the week ending December 3 for the organizational conference of the new International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (IUE-CIO). The chief business of the conference was to adopt a provisional constitution, and to place an official stamp of approval on the organizational setup worked out at the CIO convention in Cleveland during October.
The IUE-CIO was chartered at Cleveland after the expulsion of the Communist Party-controlled United Electrical Workers (UE) from the CIO. At that time Philip Murray appointed James Carey to head the administrative committee which, runs the new organization. The committee itself was made up of the men elected by the anti-Stalinist caucus at the last UE convention.
Since that time, the IUE has been engaged in a knock-down-drag-out fight with the Stalinists for the allegiance of the workers in the electrical and machine industry. The new CIO outfit has sought to get votes of affiliation from as many UE locals as it could reach. The Stalinists have tried to obstruct any chance for their membership to vot> on affiliation, and have relied chiefly on court injunctions to prevent the IUE from winning its membership. Despite these efforts, James Carey . announced last week that the IUE now represents about 238,000 workers in the industry of its jurisdiction.
One of the highlights of the conference was Carey’s attack on the. courts. In a fiery speech he urged the courts to wake up to their political responsibilities in ousting the Stalinists from any influence in the American labor movement, and attacked the judiciary for abiding by “dry and dead court precedent and intricate questions of law” in rendering decisions in the UE-IUE struggle.
This attack on the courts was in line with the whole. ideological line of the conference. The IUE leadership regards itself as the defender of Americanism, patriotism, and American foreign policy in the ranks of labor, as against the Stalinist bearers of Moscow policy.
Their fight was endorsed by President Truman in a message to the conference, by Secretary of Labor Tobin, Secretary of the Air Force Symington and other big-wigs who addressed the conference and praised it in flattering terms. Carey feels that with backing from the executive branch of the government, the courts should fall in line also, regardless of the laws involved in the struggle over the funds, property and contracts of the UE.
The IUE has been launched with more official blessings from government bureaucrats than any other union in the history of the American labor movement. Though the delegates in the corridors grumbled at the long-winded speeches by the government brass, and wanted to get down to business, they did not do anything to make it plain to these government officials that the IUE is going to conduct a struggle for wages and conditions which may well prove embarrassing in the future to the government and its employer supporters.
It is particularly interesting to point out that Symington is, in civilian life, an employer of electrical workers, through Emerson Electric which he controls.
The general temper of the conference was pervaded by a feeling of uneasiness and concern over the future organizational setup of the new union. The feeling was not organized in caucus form, and the uneasy delegates had no clear-cut program or policy to offer against the line of James Carey. The feeling of concern showed itself mainly in attempts to limit the powers of the president of the union in the provisional constitution.
Article 6 of the draft constitution presented to the delegates provided that between meetings of the Executive Board the president should have full power to direct the affairs of the union. Further, that “the president shall have the authority to appoint, direct, suspend or remove such organizers, representatives, and employees as he may deem necessary.” After some debate “subject to the approval of the Executive Board” was inserted at the beginning of that sentence.
Section B of the same article provided that “the president ... shall convene regular quarterly meetings of the Executive Board at his discretion ...” This was changed by the conference to read that only the time and place of the regular quarterly meetings should be at the president’s discretion.
This minor matter shows the attitude of the delegates. Though Carey and others insisted that this amendment merely stated in words the idea of this section, the delegates were willing to leave nothing to chance or good will.
A similar struggle took place over Section 17, which provides for the suspension dr revocation of local, union charters. The draft presented to the conference provided that when the president thinks a local is violating the constitution, he can appoint one or more members of the Executive Board to hold hearings. The conference insisted that this be changed to read “not less than three” members of the board, to prevent any private deals between the president and any single member to discriminate against locals.
By and large, the provisional constitution is more democratic than the old constitution of the UE. It maintains the autonomy of the districts. Presidents elected by the districts are members of the Executive Board. Officers will be nominated by conventions and elected by membership referendum, on a local basis. Constitutional amendments will also be subject to referendum. A member brought up on charges in his local may appeal to higher bodies, including the convention. But the higher bodies have no right to discipline a member if his local declares him innocent of charges. Delegates to conventions must be either officers from their locals, or workers actually working in a shop under the jurisdiction of their local. This will prevent top officers or employees of the union from picking up “proxy” votes.
The old UE office of director of organization is abolished in the IUE constitution. This office made the president a figurehead. In the IUE-CIO the president will be the real executive officer of- the union. Though this concentration of powers in the hands of the president also gave rise to uneasiness, the delegates were persuaded to accept it as a, normal arrangement in the labor movement.
The constitution carries the same provision as the CIO constitution barring members of the Communist Party, other “totalitarian or fascist organizations” or those who consistently follow their policies, from office. But it also includes a much more dangerous provision, or rather, omission. In setting forth qualifications for MEMBERSHIP in the union the draft stated that all workers in the industry would be admitted, “regardless of skill, age, sex, nationality, color, religious or political belief or affiliation.” The conference voted, without opposition, to strike the words “political belief er affiliation” from this provision.
This is not only undemocratic in general, it is particularly dangerous in the IUE at this time. Now that the danger of union dictatorship of the Stalinists has been eliminated, a very real danger is rising in the IUE of dictatorship from the extreme conservative right-wing, connected with the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists, and also from the possibility of a consolidation of a Carey machine.
This is not simply a vague danger – it is a very real one. Already the ACTU stalwarts are driving for the elimination of all liberal and radical elements from the union, regardless of their attitude towards the Stalinists. The formal elimination of the freedom of political belief and affiliation in the union will give aid and comfort to this campaign.
The recent experience of the membership in the NMU and other unions should serve as a warning to the militants in the IUE of what lies ahead, of them if they do not stand up now for the rights of dissident opinion in their new union.
This reactionary trend is one of the fruits of the undemocratic, machine-type manner in which the fop CIO leadership has decided to proceed against the Stalinists. Another fruit of the same tree is the hamstringing of the workers in the whole electrical industry with regard to their contract demands on the employers.
The IUE-UE fight has made it possible for the employers to break off all negotiations with the UE on the grounds that it is not clear who represents the workers, and at the same time to refuse to negotiate with the IUE.
The employers are sitting pretty, and the workers will have to wait till next spring, when the NLRB elections are over, to start negotiations. This means that they will miss out on the whole fourth round of demands by the union movement.
This situation could have been prevented if the CIO leadership had supported the membership, in an INTERNAL, democratic fight against the Stalinists instead of deciding to get them out’ by organizational measures from the top. Democracy does pay in the labor movement – right into the checks of the workers.
In the meantime, the struggle for position in the organizational setup of the IUE will go on. Though Carey has broken openly with the ACTU forces, especially in District 6, he shows no sign of organizing a real campaign against this attempt of an organized religious body to dominate the union. The militant and socialist elements in the union are completely unorganized. Unless they get together and work out a program of democracy and militancy in the union it is likely that they can be cut down one by one.
In the Economic Report of the Chairman to the conference, Carey points out that the electrical workers are lagging behind workers in other industries, particularly with regard to wages. The report promises a program of struggle to catch up with the other unions, and to obtain a broad social security program from the employers.
Yet, despite all its militant talk, this program has some strange phrases for an outfit which really intends to fight. In pushing its demands, the report says the union will be “hard-headed, realistic and practical. It will take into account the ability to pay of the various companies. It will take into account the pay differentials,” etc.
That is all very “sane” talk, but it does not always sound like the talk of a leadership which is really determined to make “a thorough change in the situation of the workers in the electrical industry.”
The organizational setup which has prevailed till now will continue to the first constitutional convention of the IUE-CIO. That is to take place not later than next September. Though many of the delegates would have preferred an earlier date, the argument was that NLRB elections will not have been conclusive till the summer o/ 1950. Only then will it be possible to establish which locals are actually in the IUE.
What happens between now and the first convention will be of the greatest importance to the future of the new union. ACTU is organized and organizing to get control, with the blessings of the church. Carey Is building his own political fences, with the blessings of the government brass.
The militants would do well to map a plan of action and a program for the new union, and try to get the blessings of the membership. If a real fighting union is to be built, those blessings are the only ones which do not carry a curse with them.
Gordon Haskell Archive | Trotskyist Writers’ Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 10 December 2022