THE CAUSES OF THE SPECTACULAR DECLINE OF AMERICAN LABOR: INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL

Anna Mistele

AP United States History

May 18, 2017

 Mistele 1

The conflict between labor and business has been a constant battle, throughout American

history, of the common man versus corporate greed. For the entirety of the 20th century, the labor

movements most formidable opponent has always been big business and its close political ally, the

Republican Party. Because of the party divide in labor support, the success of the labor movement has

fluctuated along with the rise and fall of economic conservatism. The stability of the labor movements

power, however, was very fragile; after the passage of the devastating 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which

severely curtailed the power of unions and created easy channels for employers to break any strike,1 the

movement found it increasingly difficult to organize and recover. As time progressed, it seemed labor

was fighting a two-front war, not only against corporations, but also its own inefficacy, a far sneakier

threat. Since the 1950s, the American labor movement has suffered steep losses because of internal

weaknesses, like disunity and corruption, as well a major external obstacle: the anti-labor Republicans.

Because of this, the movement has been reliant on other civil reform groups in order to achieve its

goals.

The labor movement has been left extremely vulnerable to attack because of its lack of a strong,

unified front. Despite the efforts of union leaders to cohere, external pressures starting in the 1950s

caused the shaky unity of the movement to give way. In 1955, unions were hopeful that the merging of

the AFL and CIO groups would signal a new era of unity. However, the newly formed AFL-CIO was simply

a small bandage over a gaping wound. The first AFL-CIO convention was carefully planned so as to avoid

conflict, and business was conducted with a unanimity which was openly recognized as an expression

of unity rather than as an indication that all disputes were settled and all problems solved.2 Though the

AFL-CIO still exists today, the labor movement is hardly a poster child of unity. In 2005, several large

unions left the AFL-CIO to create a new organization, Change to Win. The fundamental difference

between the two unions is their approach to labor reform: whereas the AFL-CIO relies more on

1
William Green, The Taft-Hartley Act: A Critical View, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.
274 (1951): 202.
2
Joseph W. Bloch, Founding Convention of the AFL-CIO, Monthly Labor Review, vol. 79, no. 2 (1956): 141.
 Mistele 2

traditional methods, Change to Win is searching for new, innovative ways to reinvigorate the labor

movement.3 Various events in the American labor movement have shown that a union divided cannot

stand, and they serve as examples why the AFL-CIO and CTW would benefit from cooperation. In 1981,

the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) led a strike of federal workers, and without

the help of other unions, it succumbed to the fierce attack of the Reagan Administration. Most large

labor leaders refused to endorse PATCO, and some groups, like the Pilots Union, openly criticized both

PATCOs strike and the union itself. Because members of other air travel unions crossed the picket line,

the striking air traffic controllers were left vulnerable to a mass firing.4 The failure of the PATCO strike

revealed one of the biggest labor divides since the start of the 1950s, and it demonstrated the necessity

of solidarity. It only lasted, however, for four days. A much longer, and messier example of union

disorganization was the Hormel Foods Strike of 1985-1986. The strike lasted for nearly a year5, and the

Hormel strikers continued to picket through the reopening of the plant.6 The strikers ignored the advice

of their parent union, United Food and Commercial Workers, to quit. Even when Lane Kirkman, the

president of the AFL-CIO, condemned the extended strike, the Hormel workers did not give in.7 The

Hormel Foods Strike represented, to the general public and to the labor movement, the danger of an

uncontrolled union. The strikers warmed themselves around fires in oil drums, screamed epithets and

taunted workers attempting to enter the building8 - this was not the sort of organized, well-mannered

face that international union leaders wanted to put forth. The Hormel Foods Strike, in part, served to

prove that many workers were unhappy with the current tide of labor progress. In order to utilize the

3
M.F. Masters, R. Gibney, and T.J. Zagenczyk, The AFL-CIO v. CTW: The competing visions, strategies, and structures, Journal
of Labor Research (2006): abstract.
4
Art Shostak, An Unhappy 25th Anniversary: The Patco Strike in Retrospective, New Labor Forum, vol. 15, no. 3 (2006): 75,
82.
5
Hormel Workers Approve Contract, End Yearlong Strike, Washington Post (September 13, 1986): A8. ProQuest Historical
Newspapers.
6
Hormel Strikers Protest Plan to Reopen Plant, New York Times (January 7, 1986): A10. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.
7
Kenneth B. Noble, Kirkland Joins in Parent Unions Criticism of Hormel Strikers, New York Times (February 18, 1986): A10.
ProQuest Historical Newspapers.
8
Hormel Strikers Close Plant Again, New York Times (February 1, 1986): 54. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.
 Mistele 3

combined power of the entire American labor force, the movement must set aside its differences and

compromise to move forward as one united group.

The loss of two key groups of supporters, communists and the common, otherwise apolitical,

worker, has escalated the decline of labor unity and efficacy. Communists, though detested by nearly all

Americans in the 1950s, were pivotal in the success of union expansion. As energetic, experienced

organizers9 who cared about minority labor issues as well as those of white workers, communists rose

to power in many unions and even made inroads into organizing the diverse Southern and female

workforces.10 However, communist-led unions were targeted for isolation with the passage of the

Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, which required all union leaders to swear against any affiliation with

communism. Union leaders formally resigned from the Communist Party, but that did not solve the

problem; the federal government meticulously investigated the unions and pushed for their leaders to

be charged with perjury. Worse for labors united front, the new weakness opened up left-wing unions

to attack by their enemies within the movement.11 As described by author Ellen Schrecker, Rival unions,

which had been raiding the communist unions for years, stepped up their attacks [and] got help from

such allies as the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and the Catholic Church.12 By

escalating conflict between unions, the Era of McCarthyism led to severe schisms in the labor

movement. Even the CIO, a supposedly inclusive group of unions, was affected by the anticommunist

hysteria: in 1949 it expelled 11 unions suspected of having communist ties.13 The fierce anticommunism

of the 1950s was a serious blow to labor solidarity, as it sidelined a group of effective community

organizers and exacerbated tensions between unions. The second faction that the labor movement lost

was the coalition of nonpolitical supporters. Before the 50s, workers would have to actively participate

in their unions in order to share in union victories. However, the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act included

9
Ellen Schrecker, McCarthyism's Ghosts: Anticommunism and American Labor, New Labor Forum, no. 4 (1999): 8.
10
Ibid., 9-10.
11
Ibid., 11-12
12
Ibid., 12
13
Ibid.
 Mistele 4

a provision for the right to work - that is, the right to benefit from union successes without having to

strike or engage in union activities.14 This served as an alluring option for the less politically active

members of unions. Essentially, right-to-work laws allowed workers to reap all the benefits without

risking their jobs in the process. By incentivizing a large portion of the labor movement to step back

from the fray, the Taft-Hartley Act split apart the bonds of solidarity and deprived unions of the ability to

populate their strikes. Losing a population of the workforce and an important group of communist

organizers wrecked any remaining spirit of cohesiveness inside the labor movement and left it

susceptible to failure.

Making matters worse, labor has been unable to maintain an honest public image because of

the prevalence of union corruption and organized crime influence. Not all labor corruption was led by

gangs - some unions took bribes from their employers, ignoring blatant labor violations in return.15

However, most of the power was held by local crime bosses. They had significant influence in the labor

movement throughout the mid- and late- twentieth century, forging connections with union leaders

through bargaining, or if necessary, intimidation. Corrupt unions provided the mob with funds by

creating fake jobs, diverting pensions and welfare, and fabricating expense reports.16 Until the

Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, which was passed in response to a growing public distaste in union

racketeering, unions were able to easily finance organized crime as well as corrupt labor leaders. The

Landrum-Griffin Act forced unions to submit detailed finance reports,17 which helped to expose the

underlying corruption of the labor movement.18 Unfortunately, the law did not halt the progress of

union corruption, which has continued into the present. Starting in the 1970s, government committees

14
G. William Domhoff, The Rise and Fall of Labor Unions in the U.S., University of California, Santa Cruz, accessed May 17,
2017, http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/history_of_labor_unions.html.
15
James B. Jacobs, Mobsters, Unions, and Feds: The Mafia and the American Labor Movement (New York: New York University
Press, 2006), 102.
16
Ibid., 14, 65, 80, 234.
17
Bernard D. Nossiter, Labor Reform Bill Approved, Washington Post (3 September 1959): A1. ProQuest Historical
Newspapers.
18
James B. Jacobs, "Is Labor Union Corruption Special?", Social Research 80, no. 4 (2013): 1059.
 Mistele 5

began to investigate union corruption. Throughout the next few decades, several reports were released

detailing the financial exploitation of the labor movement; the agencies concluded that extortion,

bribery, theft, frauds, intimidation and violence, sabotage, and collusive bidding/bid rigging19 existed in

labor unions, and several unions were complicit: the International Longshoremen Association, the

Laborers International Union of North America, and the the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.20

Though the federal government and large labor unions themselves have worked diligently to crack down

on crime, the labor movement has still, to this day, remained unsuccessful in its efforts. The Teamsters

in particular have faced difficulty in challenging internal corruption. After being expelled from the

AFL-CIO in 1957 for its crooked behavior, the Teamster union fell under the control of the fraudulent

Jimmy Hoffa, who went to jail in 1967 for funneling union funds to the mafia. After submitting to an

investigation committee in 1989, the union seemed to have gotten back on its feet; then, in early 2016,

an important Teamster official, and friend of the union president, was charged with accepting bribes and

racketeering.21 Because of corruption reports publicity and news about investigated unions, one of the

labor movements biggest weaknesses has remained under public scrutiny since the 1950s. The fall of

the American labor movement can be, because of this public disapproval and internal struggle for

balance, largely attributed to mob influence and union corruption.

Republicans have proved startlingly adept at gauging current public concerns in order to

manipulate support for anti-labor policies, and it is because of this talent that several anti-labor laws

have been passed. This Republican tactic was employed in the passage of both the Taft-Hartley Act of

1947 and the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959. In the frenzied anti-communist sentiment of the post-WWII

era, Republican lawmakers related the impending Soviet threat to the supposed looming power of

labor unions. Critic William Green made an apt analogy as to the philosophy of the act: The Taft-Hartley

19
James B. Jacobs, "Is Labor Union Corruption Special?", Social Research 80, no. 4 (2013): 1061.
20
Ibid., 1060-1061.
21
John Fund, The other big election this fall: the Teamsters president, National Review, (April 28, 2016).
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434686/teamsters-election-october-corruption-still-issue. Accessed 17 May 2017.
 Mistele 6

Act proceeds from the false assumption that the lambs [unions] have grown so formidable that the

welfare of the wolves [corporations] is now in jeopardy.22 The new law, which scaled back most of the

labor movements gains from the past century23, was accompanied by a second appeal to the hysteria:

all union leaders must sign a non-communist affidavit - that is, they must legally deny any connection to

communist or anarchist groups24. In adding this provision, Republicans effectively transformed the intent

of the act, from an assault on the working class to a logical response to the growing Soviet threat. Fifties

Era America, of which 64% believed that quite a few union leaders worked for the communists,25 was

eager to weed out Moscows influence in the labor movement. The Taft-Hartley Act, essentially, rode a

wave of fear into legal recognition. This sort of conservative misdirection forces interpreters to read

between the lines in order to discern the true meaning of a union-busting policy. A similarly misleading

law, the Landrum-Griffin Act, was passed in 1959 with the stated purpose of combatting union

corruption. According to a 1957 Gallup poll, 43% of the American public considered corruption to be a

union epidemic.26 The act was intended to address the rampant union corruption, but Republican

lawmakers tacked on several harsh extensions of the Taft-Hartley Act. In response, the AFL-CIOs

spokesperson announced, We cannot in honesty cheer for a bill which makes Taft-Hartley worse.27

Much to the dismay of the labor movement, the Landrum-Griffin Act passed. Thus, the Republican Party

successfully extended the Taft-Hartley Act, this time under the guise of anti-racketeering. By framing

their anti-labor laws as solutions to widespread public concerns, Republican lawmakers have been able

to covertly counter the labor movement and the civil liberties of the working class.

A third example of superior Republican media influence is epitomized by the government

handling of the PATCO strike of 1981. Instead of a mobilization of public support for legislation, this

22
William Green, The Taft-Hartley Act: A Critical View, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
vol. 274 (1951): 203.
23
Ibid.
24
Sumner H. Slichter, The Taft-Hartley Act, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 63, no. 1, (1949): 11.
25
Kathleen Weldon, Public Attitudes About Labor Unions, 1936-Today, Huffington Post, (October 29, 2014). Accessed 17 May
2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-weldon/public-attitudes-about-la_b_5716177.html.
26
Ibid.
27
Bernard D. Nossiter, Labor Reform Bill Approved.
 Mistele 7

strike represents a time when conservatives expertly wielded the law against a striking union. When

federal air traffic controllers went on strike, the union was knocked completely off-guard by the vicious

attack by the federal government, which was in control of one of the biggest propaganda machines

outside the Kremlin.28 Under President Reagan, the government successfully painted PATCO strikers as

greedy unworthy law-breakers,29 choosing two main points for attack. The first contention, that the

strikers were only protesting for more money, was largely untrue, but PATCO was not equipped to

quickly counter the accusation. The union, in an attempt to sway media opinion, announced that the

strikers were also protesting for updated airline hardware and more cooperative management. The

attempt failed. The governments second primary target was PATCOs no-strike oath - because they

broke their oath, the air traffic control union had technically broken the law by going on strike. Despite

the labor movements response, that no-strike oaths violate workers civil liberties, the public came to

see PATCO strikers as disloyal and criminal.30 In a famous quote from President Reagan regarding the

no-strike oath, he stated, Dammit, the law is the law.31 He was applauded in the press for his use of

power against the union; many Americans saw his response to the PATCO strike as a display of his

strength and dedication to the law.32 Reagans tough stance on illegal union activities inspired a

newfound sense of confidence in citizens, many of whom believed the country was turning soft. PATCO

president Robert Poli gave his impression of the media response: Editorial cartoonists portrayed me

as an Ayatollah who was holding the flying public hostage.33 This comparison of the PATCO strike and

the Iranian Hostage Crisis draws attention to the ineptitude of past president Jimmy Carter in dealing

with an international crisis. Ronald Reagan, in comparison, was portrayed by the federal propaganda

force to be the strong Commander-In-Chief that Jimmy Carter never was. As seen in the failure of the

28
Shostak, The Patco Strike in Retrospective, 78.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid., 78-79.
31
Ibid., 79
32
Cecil R. Haden, Display Ad, Washington Post (August 18, 1981). ProQuest Historical Newspapers.
33
Shostak, The Patco Strike in Retrospective, 79.
 Mistele 8

PATCO strike, the labor movement was not prepared to face a determined and powerful Republican

media backlash. The speed and efficacy with which the federal government moved to destroy the

unions reputation sharply contrasts with the scrambling defense created by the labor movement -

because of this steep Republican advantage, the labor movement quickly lost support among the public

and continued its decline.

The only significant advancements that the labor movement has made since the 1950s have

been through teamwork with other reform groups, such as the feminist and the racial civil rights

movement; during the Civil Rights Era, these groups expanded the meaning of the movement itself.

Women in the 60s and 70s pushed for equal treatment in the workforce, and while most white male

workers were not directly benefited by these efforts, labor gained when it understood womens issues

as crucial for the advancement of the working class.34 Success, in any part of the labor movement, can

be considered a victory. Women, in fact, expanded the labor movement past the bounds previously

recognized by men. Their immense dedication to the cause forced union leaders and employers alike to

listen to their demands, and because of this, new programs were created to cater to womens unique

needs.35 Not only did women achieve greater equality with laws like the Equal Pay Act of 196336 and the

Civil Rights Act of 1964,37 which together ban labor discrimination against women, but they also

achieved the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and, in 1982, several thousand Chinese immigrants

won a union-sponsored day care.38 By coercing the labor movement into accepting new victories on

behalf of women, feminists added to the protections for workers, and thus deserve recognition. A

second group that deserves recognition for the success of the labor movement was the black civil rights

movement. When faced with exclusion from the AFL-CIO and other mainstream organizations, black

34
Eileen Boris and Annelise Orleck, Feminism and the Labor Movement: A Century of Collaboration and Conflict, New Labor
Forum 20, no. 1 (2011): 34.
35
Ibid., 37.
36
"Equal Pay Act of 1963," Monthly Labor Review 86, no. 8 (1963): 947.
37
United States National Archives. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Accessed 17 May 2017. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act.
38
Boris and Orleck, Feminism and the Labor Movement, 37.
 Mistele 9

activists formed their own labor group, the Negro American Labor Council (NALC). The NALC is best

known for leading the March on Washington in 1963, in which black Americans organized to speak out

in defense of their labor rights.39 African American activists, too, contributed to the Civil Rights Act of

1964, which benefited women and minorities alike. African American and female laborers both markedly

changed the direction of the labor movement during the 60s and 70s. By leading the labor movement

to appreciate new paths instead of remaining focused on traditional goals, the feminist and racial civil

rights groups of the mid-1900s were able to reconstruct the movements notions of success to include

minority and female achievements.

Seventy years after the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act, the labor movement still continues its

decline, but workers have taken a new approach to voicing their concerns. Just as the working class

gained traction during the Civil Rights movement through other reform groups, the working class

perspective survives today despite the dying state of the labor movement itself. The election of Donald

Trump in the recent 2016 presidential election epitomizes the new identity of labor. In recent years,

poor non-unionized industrial workers have grown more and more embittered and isolated.40 Many

without unions, and most without the empathy of the rest of the country, the working class sought

change. In November, they expressed this directed anger by voting for a candidate who spoke simply,

and spoke of what they craved - more jobs and a powerful United States to be proud of once more. The

loss of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, a group long known for its union support and promises

of labor reform,41 revealed a mindset shift in the general working population. The traditional labor

movement, with its policy promises and large international organizations, has been unable to satisfy the

victims of industrialization. After almost a century of oppression and failure, labor discontent has finally

39
King Center, Negro American Labor Council, Accessed 17 May 2017. http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/theme/472.
40
Chen, Victor Tan. All Hallowed Out: The Lonely Poverty of Americas White Working Class. The Atlantic, (January 16, 2016).
Accessed 17 May 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/white-working-class-poverty/424341/.
41
Hillary for America. Labor and Workers. Accessed 17 May 2017. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/.
 Mistele 10

bubbled over into an entirely new movement. One can only speculate as to where this new wave of

protest will lead the country.

 Mistele 11

Works Cited

Bloch, Joseph W. Founding Convention of the AFL-CIO. Monthly Labor Review, vol. 79, no. 2 (1956):

141149., www.jstor.org/stable/41833360.

Boris, Eileen and Annelise Orleck. Feminism and the Labor Movement: A Century of Collaboration and

Conflict. New Labor Forum 20, no. 1 (2011): 33-41. Accessed May 17, 2017.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27920539.

Chen, Victor Tan. All Hallowed Out: The Lonely Poverty of Americas White Working Class. The

Atlantic, (January 16, 2016). Accessed 17 May 2017.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/white-working-class-poverty/424341/.

Domhoff, G. William. The Rise and Fall of Labor Unions In The U.S. University of California, Santa Cruz,

2017. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/history_of_labor_unions.html. Accessed

16 May 2017.

"Equal Pay Act of 1963." Monthly Labor Review 86, no. 8 (1963): 947.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41835388.

Fund, John. The other big election this fall: the Teamsters president. National Review, April 28, 2016.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434686/teamsters-election-october-corruption-still-

issue. Accessed 17 May 2017.

 Mistele 12

Green, William. The Taft-Hartley Act: A Critical View. The Annals of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science, vol. 274 (1951): 200205., www.jstor.org/stable/1027094.

Haden, Cecil R. Display Ad. Washington Post (August 18, 1981). ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

Hillary for America. Labor and Workers. Accessed 17 May 2017.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/.

Hormel Strikers Close Plant Again. New York Times (February 1, 1986): 54. ProQuest Historical

Newspapers.

Hormel Strikers Protest Plan to Reopen Plant. New York Times (January 7, 1986): A10. ProQuest

Historical Newspapers.

Hormel Workers Approve Contract, End Yearlong Strike. Washington Post (September 13, 1986): A8.

ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

Jacobs, James B. "Is Labor Union Corruption Special?" Social Research 80, no. 4 (2013): 1057-1086.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24385651.

Jacobs, James B. Mobsters, Unions, and Feds: The Mafia and the American Labor Movement. New York:

New York University Press, 2006.

King Center. Negro American Labor Council. Accessed 17 May 2017.

http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/theme/472.
 Mistele 13

Masters, M.F., R. Gibney, and T.J. Zagenczyk, The AFL-CIO v. CTW: The competing visions, strategies,

and structures. Journal of Labor Research (2006): abstract.

Noble, Kenneth B. Kirkland Joins in Parent Unions Criticism of Hormel Strikers. New York Times

(February 18, 1986): A10. ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

Nossiter, Bernard D. Labor Reform Bill Approved. Washington Post (3 September 1959): A1. ProQuest

Historical Newspapers.

Schrecker, Ellen. McCarthyism's Ghosts: Anticommunism and American Labor. New Labor Forum, no. 4

(1999): 617., www.jstor.org/stable/40342219.

Shostak, Art. "An Unhappy 25th Anniversary: The Patco Strike in Retrospective." New Labor Forum 15,

no. 3 (2006): 74-82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40342646.

Slichter, Sumner H. The Taft-Hartley Act. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 63, no. 1 (1949):

131., www.jstor.org/stable/1882732.

United States National Archives. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. Accessed 17 May 2017. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons

/civil-rights-act.

Weldon, Kathleen. Public Attitudes About Labor Unions, 1936-Today. Huffington Post, October 29,
 Mistele 14

2014. Accessed 17 May 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-weldon/public-

attitudes-about-la_b_5716177.html.