B.J. Widick Archive | ETOL Main Page
From Labor Action, Vol. 13 No. 47, 21 November 1949, p. 1.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
DETROIT, Nov. 13 – Although the 1949 struggles of labor for economic demands are not yet over, the United Auto Workers (CIO) began its preparations for the major fight of 1950 with General Motors Corporation at a two-day conference of nearly 250 delegates from all GM local unions.
Walter Reuther’s vigorous speech outlining a program which included a pension plan better than Ford’s, a union shop, social insurance amounting to 8 cents per hour per worker, severance pay, and contract improvements was approved by the delegates, although other questions generated sharp friction and a disturbing reaction on the part of the top UAW leaders.
Reuther pointed out that the GM demands were for 1950 and not 1949. He obviously expects to set the pace for the CIO in May, 1950, when the GM contract expires. Although none of the demands he outlined were finalized – a meeting in March will do that – the GM package demand presents another challenge to the auto industry.
In view of the bitter opposition from local union leaders in Flint and the general disfavor that the Ford pension plan has found among most GM union leaders, Reuther spent considerable time defending the Ford settlement. Three’ principles were laid down at Ford: (1) non-contributory pensions; (2) sound funding of the pension; (3) equal trusteeship. Reuther admitted that seniority and age requirements were too high, but said this was due to the great amount of money necessary to make up the back credits for workers now ready or soon ready to retire.
Reuther took the sting out of criticisms along this line by stating that at General Motors and Chrysler these can be improved because of the lower seniority and age levels. Reuther’s whole approach now is somewhat different from the jubilant “victory” approach that marked the first publicity on the Ford settlement.
Reuther also pledged the delegates that no economic demands will be sacrificed for the union shop.
The other main speaker was T.R. Johnstone, UAW director of the GM department, who gave a detailed report on the preparations for the union-shop fight. An NLRB election will be held, as required by the Taft-Hartley Law, before the contract expires.
Johnstone also made some remarks that are a repetition of the disgraceful show which Mike Quill put on at the national CIO convention. Johnstone sneered at “pinks, punks and parasites,” a phrase used by the ex-fellow traveler Quill. He blasted at Flint union leaders and warned that “I thought caucuses went out of style with [R.J.] Thomas.” Apparently he forgot Reuther’s pledge at the national UAW convention that caucuses had a rightful – and necessary – place in a democratic union. One . delegate pointedly answered Johnstone with the comment: “When caucuses die, our union dies.”
The chief target of Reuther and Johnstone was Coburn Walker of. Flint. The main opposition to Reuther came from Flint Locals 235 and 659 (of which Walker is president) and from Local 45 of Cleveland. They held a small caucus meeting which bothered Reuther and Johnstone, but the opposition announced another meeting too, in spite of the blasts directed at them.
Actually Reuther took the steam out of all the opposition to him and the Ford pension plan by his “radical” speech, and even Walker was forced to admit that Reuther had “adopted our program,” which was not true. Reuther and his advisers had worked out what line they wanted in relation to GM in 1950. Thus the opposition was left with nothing to do but snipe on petty issues and antagonize the vast majority of delegates.
The Reuther leadership was very bitter about some of the editorials in local uhion papers against the Ford pension plan, saying that they were irresponsibly written and untrue; but on this score a rather interesting incident took place.
The only time the delegates took Walker seriously was when he asked the question: “Is there one delegate here who would accept the Ford pension?” An otherwise hostile audience maintained complete silence on that question. Another delegate also defended his views against the Ford pension plan and stated that although he was a Reuther supporter he would criticize any time he thought it was necessary. This delegate, Rudy Pale from Flint, had written an editorial against the Ford settlement.
As a matter of fact, the bitter, fanatical and hysterical opposition which the anti-Reutherites display at this and other conferences facilitates Reuther’s defense of his actions, good or bad. If he didn’t have that kind of opposition he’d have to create it, for it is a convenient factional whipping boy.
Most of the delegates were very much impressed with Reuther’s program for 1950, for it is very good. Time and events will answer the question: Will his actions measure up to his words?
B.J. Widick Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 10 December 2022