Politics in the twentieth century; What next for the unions

The National Association of educational broadcasters welcomes you to what next for the unions an examination of organized labor as a political force one in a series of discussion programs titled politics in the 20th century produced and transcribed by the community education project in San Bernardino Valley College. First you'll hear Samuel Lubell political analyst journalist and author speaking from his study in New York and calculating some of the forces that are remaking the American political scene. Next we'll hear a group of foreign experts and scholars breaking up the discussion in the department of government seminar room at the Moana College in Claremont California. The group will be led by Dr. Charles Nixon political scientist University of California Los Angeles and will have as its regular members Dr. Frank Lee's sociologist University of California Riverside and Dr. Lee MacDonald political scientist Pomona College. We have as our special guest today Mr. John deciples secretary treasurer of California industrial union council AFLCIO and now here is I mean all of well as recorded in New York in Indianapolis one day I was

talking to the wife of the printer during the depression her husband had worked for 30 cents an hour. He had to swallow his anger when newcomers were hired existing Sanson. When the NRA changed that as this woman recalled her husband became an ardent Roosevelt supporter in 1940 the couple bought their own home although they could only scrape together $200 for a downpayment during the wars out the wife was able to find a job with two steady salaries they not only paid off the mortgage on their home but bought the house next door which they rented out. Then after the Korean War broke out President Truman asked for legislation to control rents. The wife angrily decided to vote Republican. I put a new roof around the house she complained to me it cost me $67 but I couldn't raise rents rent control is communistic. Her husband Dow stock with the Democrats because he felt it was still the party of the working man. The split in this

family is symptomatic of what has happened to labor and politics. Trade union membership is currently at its peak. With the merger of the AFL and the CIO one might expect the political influence of organized labor to be sawing to a new high. But the spreading prosperity of recent years has watered down both labors political militancy and voting solidarity. As voters have climbed the economic ladder bought new homes and I've even become landlords. They have become more conscious of taxes and of the threat of inflation to their savings and they have tended to divide politically even as did this family in Indianapolis. The change can be seen in the voting returns of every major urban center in 1936 and even in 1940 most industrial centers gave the Democrats from 65 to 75 percent of the vote. By 1952 the Democratic vote had dropped to around 55 percent. Not much better than an even break in

1940 after Roosevelt's third time victory. When I visited a lot of workers union in Detroit the educational director boasted how class conscious we workers are today if there is any class consciousness in the country. It will be found in the suburbs not in the No Worker neighborhoods. The suburbanites today are voting with much the same solidarity that characterized labor in 1936. Labor is far better organized today politically than 20 years ago. It is spending considerably more money on election campaigns and yet with all this organized labor has not been able to deliver anything like the vote which Franklin Roosevelt brought out without a p a c and without a labor League for Political Education. Now this does not mean that labor unions do not influence their members. It doesn't mean in my judgment that labor cannot swing its membership against the prevailing currents of

political and economic feeling in the country. Most workers still think of the Democrats as the party of the working man and the Republicans as the party of business. This feeling was borne largely in the Depression and whenever an employment. Starts up as it did in many areas in 1954 the old affection for the Democratic Party surges up with renewed force. But the longer and more sustained our prosperity the fainter grows the memory of that Hoover depression which has been the chief Republican liability since 1932. During the summer of nine hundred fifty six. When I asked workers what they thought was the main difference between the two parties I got replies which ran like this. I always felt the Democrats gave the little man a break and the Republicans were for the big shots. But I'm not sure that different still holds. Now that is a very important significant change. It is something to watch for in the years ahead

how the symbols attached to the parties by the voters change. What chance is there of labor starting its own political party. About as much chance as a snowball in a steel mill. For one thing those workers who feel the Democrats are not conservative enough. Are not likely to go for a Labor Party which would be even more extreme in its economic views than organized labor has far too much at stake in the immediate operations of government to return to the impractical gestures of splinter party politics. When World War 2 ended most labor leaders expected a repetition of the better industrial laws of the 1920s when many unions were smashed. Labor leaders will reason and rightly so that they have a far better chance of preventing history from repeating itself by working within the major parties than by going off on their own without political allies. To sum up. As with so many elements

of the population Labour's political role is being shaped by the gains that the workers and unions have registered since the Depression. Those gains can be protected vast by remaining inside the frame of our two party system. This does mean that the leaders of Labor will have to learn to harmonize their interests with those of other segments of the economy. Because of the better anti-union struggles of the past many labor leaders tend to feel that anyone who is not a friend of labor must be its enemy. But Labor leaders will have to learn to live with a choice that is not so simple as that. Not a simple black or white choice. For today many voters do not want unions destroyed but they still want the power of unions held in check balanced off against the power of business and other parts of the economy. This was Mr. Samuel LaBelle recording in his study in New York. Now let's continue our discussion of organized labor as a political force as we join our scholars and their

guest and room 60 by going to government at the Moana college. Here is Dr. Nixon thank you. Well gentlemen you have heard Mr. LaBelle's analysis of the changing role of labor and the American political scene. Mr. MacDOWELL as a political scientist how does this analysis impress you. Well one thing struck me and that was his statement that the symbols for the parties are changing the Presumably the conception of the Democratic Party as the party of the working man and the Republican Party is the party of business are no longer with us or at least are changing I react to that by saying simply this is not true as I have seen it. It may be that the symbols are obsolete. But most of the Republicans and Democrats I've talked to still think in these terms and I think unless there were a large number of people who still thought of the Democratic Party as the party of the working men you would have a much stronger move for a third party than you have had in recent years.

Mr. LEE Mr. LaBelle's analysis was laid out in many respects and rather sociological terms I'm wondering whether you would agree with his general picture. I'm not so sure that I would I'm tempted to call him a prophet of doom if I may steal a phrase. It seems to me that one of his major theses is that the trend toward suburbia is resulting in an increasingly conservative political behavior and therefore increasingly Republican political behavior even on the part of the American working man. This would seem to imply as a result the decreasing strength of the Democratic Party spell either its doom already forcing upon it a radical reorganisation from. What it is now I'm not so sure I agree with this Mr. Desboro we're glad to have you as our guest today you've had a career in the labor movement getting into labor organization as a foundry worker and moving up to president of your own local And then over into the larger picture of Labor

leadership where today you are secretary treasurer of the California industrial union council AFL Val's CIO. I'm wondering out of your own labor experience how Mr. LaBelle's picture of Labor's place in our political scene strikes you. Well if Mr. LaBella was means is that we now have a sort of creeping complacency on the part of my labor but everybody I would tend to agree with him on the other hand I would agree with Mr McDonnell's criticism of Mr. LaBella statement. And I think that the bell ignores the fact that for the recent period at least that Labor people have been registered roughly 35 to 40 percent Republican and 60 to 65 percent Democratic. And that people tend to vote with their party affiliation there is a minor minor percentage that vote independent and of course part of that percentage is influenced by the endorsements of labor we have indorsed far more Democrats than

Republicans. But as such we tried to be an independent force and we should not be equated with the Democratic Party is the do who the hell implies that organized labor is the same thing as simply labor is a whole new set only because it is true. You mean you're prepared to challenge this common notion that there is a high labor vote that one must be cognizant of and deal with particularly as a group. The primary voters a Republican vote in a democratic vote to the extent labor vote can be separated from that of those two votes. It is a vote that would be affected would swing back and forth with the candidates endorsed by labor and most of it being held on the Democratic side but it occasionally a Republican being endorsed in that extent you can say there's an organized labor vote that swings with the endorsements but that is still a minor percentage on any swing basis and by and large a program magically has more agreement with the program of the Democratic Party and a program of labor than there is with the program the Republican Party has just

called you resent it when people say labor unions are trying to take over the Democratic Party. Yes this I think is a is a big myth for the simple reason that most trade union members and leaders have not been active in either party and. I do think that this question will be more true in the future that there will be more and more and a trillion members and leaders active in the Democratic Party in the future than I have there has been in the past and also there will be a more active Republican Party but the far greater majority will be active in the Democratic side so that you will see more and more labor activity with the Democratic Party in the future it's been very small in the past and for the very simple reason that only a small percentage of people are active politically this is not true for Labor is true for the rest of the population. What they seem to imply Mr does. Oh yea an increasing gap between the leaders and the rank and file in the labor movement if the leadership is increasingly

identified or predominantly identified with the Democratic Party. And if as in certain elections which are taking place in recent years such as the Taft Ferguson fight in Ohio the labor people in their districts vote heavily on the Republican side this would seem to imply a lack of communication between the two. Well there may be a lack of communication on many issues in the effort to make clear the position that the official policy of Libyans to its membership. But. Your statement misses my whole point. My point being that we will have an increasingly higher percentage of participation in the Democratic Party and also in the Republican Party than we've had in the past which has been pathetically small. What does this mean that you will have a different orientation and terms of the strength of the party is over since you will get an increased participation in both parties this really isn't going to affect the political balance at all. Well what it will affect is what kind of Democrats are nominated what kind of Republicans are nominated about

75 to 80 percent of the elections in this country are decided in the by the party nomination the party nomination is the decisive election. It's only in 20 to 25 percent at the very most and frequently only 10 percent of the legislative districts. Does the two party vote do significant in the big stalemate in this country. Occur by virtue of the fact that most districts are primarily heavily weighted of one party or the other and the real significant struggles going on are the struggles within the parties and that's why I say that Labor's having the political gauntlet thrown down the fort by virtue of necessity will have to become more politically active and must therefore pay attention to where the decisive political decisions are made. They are made within the parties and within the party nomination rather than between the parties. But the fact still remains that if a majority of labor leaders are active in the Democratic Party and if a majority of the rank and file for least a large part of the rank and file of union members are because of increasing economic status and

development of middle class attitudes. Republican then you find a different divergence of opinion here between leaders and rank and sob. I doubt very much that the divide the percentage of party registration and labor will change very much in the near future it may change over the long haul that's further than we can see but the minute future will change roughly in the present three to two proportions. I'm simply saying label be more successful in getting. People active in the Democratic Party in the Republican Party because the Democratic Party tends to have a program more acceptable to labor and are a more difficult problem is to get people active with a program of labor within the Republican Party that will be less successful that you know some of this argument makes me feel than some expect that's revolving around a rather common illusion in many analyses of the American political scene. We tend to talk about there being a labor vote or a Catholic vote or an Italian voter or a

Negro vote going for one party or the other. When in practical fact what the situation is that 60 percent of one of these groups votes for one party but there's still another 40 percent this with another party and I think that when we talk about the question of Labor voter these other groups we need to keep in mind that in fact. And all of these groups one has members of both parties in them and consequently to talk about a greater participation of leadership in one party is probably meaning that still 60 percent of the leadership will be among party and you may have 30 40 percent of the leadership and the other party and consequently not necessarily have a real division between leadership and rank and I look when I'm making use of the 30 or 40 percent who may be registered Republican will be less active in political affairs than the Democratic side. That's the point I make. But of course the problem of apathy still remains there may be a lowered participation in both parties as you have the drive toward respectability and to use your term Mr. dustball creeping conformity that the kinds of conflicts we

had during the depression really stimulate political interest and we don't have these dramatic conflicts today in political interest drops all over the place. Well I think they said that Mr. McDonnell that seems to be one of the problems annoying for labor but for political parties is to raise the issues that are exciting issues and I would decide two or three very briefly namely that we can and through automation double or triple. Our living standards the next 10 to 30 years scientists now say it's possible to double human life within the generation or two. Theoretically human life they will live as long as five hundred years so that they seem to mean exciting issues but neither labor nor the political leadership of the parties has been able to dramatize and that's why I say we have at present time a sort of creeping complacency because these are difficult and complex issues that no one has been able to symbolize it in such a fashion that the average voter can understand.

Mr. Desboro you've talked about a coffee bean thrown down to labor and have implied that as a result they are seen crazed political activity by labor. However it seems to me that at the same time you have conceded a large measure of apathy as far as the rank and file are concerned. I'm wondering if you can therefore spell out what is this gauntlet what does it consist of. Well they they got my I would say was first at the throne now in a life in the existence of the Union by the attempt to legislate unions into a legal straitjacket the so-called right to direct unions and destroy unions security is perhaps the pinpoint of the of the gauntlet being thrown down labor the second phase of it is the effort to say that labor cannot raise political money and contribute to political candidates. That kind of attack is the kind of attack I'm referring referring to and finally the need for the labor movement and its leadership to reflect the needs and interests of its membership which are synonymous with the interests of the people as a whole.

I think these issues are things which are felt by the rank and file and affect the voting behavior of union members are these things which is felt by union leadership and activate them but really don't have very much I so far as the average work is concerned I would say at the present days they primarily are felt by the leadership who is in a position to give more time and talk to them than the person who spends most of the time it has to do the working job and is does not have the time or the opportunity to give as much thought to the issues and or lying the situation that labor is a group with the populations who are confronted with. I was rather interested in your suggestion about a variety of issues which are of importance in the long run automation extended length of life and this kind of thing. But how does this make a difference to the political scene it seems to me these are issues in terms of the changing character of American life but is this going to make any difference as to the strength of the Republican of the Democratic Party or who our political leadership is. It certainly will if we get candidates coming out and campaigning for those kind of issues or talking

about getting all of us out of debt to 90 percent of the labor but of the country of who are in debt up to the next from payday to payday they have. Candidates talking on programs designed to do effectively and hasten the value of automation the better health of longer life for higher living standards of getting more and more of the better things of life. Then I think people will tend to be more excited than they are with the present rather complacent attitude we find in most of the population. Well how does the merger of the AFL CIO set into this picture was this a response to the absence of issues or was it a response to the political gauntlet you spoke of. Well it's partly a response to the political gauntlet and partly big occurred because there was no longer a valid reason for the division to exist. The original reason being the difference of opinion how to organize workers in the mass production industries and that has now been commonly accepted by the majority

of the leadership in the American Union so they begin to put everything into one federated organization which will make it possible to get more effective political action over the long haul. YOU A LOT see an immediate effect in this but I think this is true in the long run. In a good many discussions one hears about the relation of the unions to the labor vote. And there's a good deal of challenge to the notion as to why the labor can in fact Or should we say Labor leadership can deliver the union vote. I'm rather interested in some of the studies that were made following the 1952 election which suggested that union members stuck pretty closely to the Democratic Party you know the real breakaway was with union families that is the wives and children's of members. I'm wondering if as you know Labor voting whether this would seem to be the case with as you see it that in fact there's a pretty effective stimulus to the union member to stay with the Democratic Party today even though those around him may move farther away from it.

Well I would say first that the division in families including labor families in 1952 was relatively slight and they were probably only a 5 percent increase in the split between husband and wife moving families tend to vote together and I think that's true today as well as in the past. Then you would seem to feel that the authority of the American working husband will not be weakened and a future to an appreciable extent well is gradually being weakened with a very slow process. There aren't very many women like Mr bluebells who put a roof on the next house and therefore vote Republican. As a matter of fact one of the things that the unions are tending to do is to get the wives of union members active in politics we have a women's participation program we're just beginning to develop it's in its beginning stages and as that goes along we'll have more women active in as they become active require more and more political convictions. And to that extent they may have more differences with their husbands. I think this is one of the smartest moves on the part of labor and a long time I was talking to

Ledroit Paul a while ago and he was pointing out that as far as the average political worker was concerned that a woman was worth about 10 men if she really got interested in a subject political activity must because she has more time to give to. I'm rather interested in some of your suggestions about the new issues because it seems to me that when you talk about the question of automation you are bringing in again still that is a question you might say of basic economic interest suggesting that the economic issues have changed their character. Someone of job security and the whether one will or not have a job to do is the character of the job. What this suggests that in fact the same motivations will continue to dominate voting behavior. But in fact but the specific character of them is not changing character. I think this is true and I think this is perhaps a real contribution to Mr. LaBella is making when he says the economic impact on American politics is a is a significant part of the political future in in America. In this sense

what needs to be done by Labor leadership is to help develop these issues and translate them into understandable terms to its membership and also needs to be done by the political parties the most successful political party in the future will be the party whose leadership develops these issues first and best. I think it's rather interesting around the character of our discussion. There seems to be a general agreement with Mr the bells they says that the changing character of the economy and the increased prosperity has undoubtedly changed the specific voting patterns of American workers. But there is perhaps a feeling that Mr LaBelle has left out of his discussion a basic fact and that is that Labor leadership and union members will become increasingly concerned with parties and with what happens behind the scenes or prior to the general election and the political scene. There is perhaps or we might say eg increasing political sophistication as to how the party system works and at the points where real influence and impact can be made.

Mr Nixon I would say in that regard I think Mr. LaBella ignores the outstanding fact that the preoccupation of the labor movement its leadership and its active members in the past has been with collective bargaining and getting union management contracts in improving its living standard by direct economic relationship with the corporate employers. The tendency in the future will be to. No need to continue that process but to develop more activity in the political field we've had in the past which has been relatively little. I think that is an aspect however of this concern with the changing character of economic issues as a rather interesting parallel to the analysis has been made here to the changing character of votes among Negroes among the ethnic groups in American life among the farmers that was all of these. The increased prosperity is their changing position in the class structure has had an influence upon the changing pattern of their partisan commitments and their voting behavior.

I'm wondering Mr. McDonnell of their other issue is related to this picture of labor in the American political scene that you think we ought to keep in mind in this connection I think we should not exaggerate the direct connection between economic interest and voting behavior and confuse this with class consciousness in voting behavior Mr. LaBella suggested as liberals become less class conscious suburbia is becoming more class conscious and this is perhaps because of the post-war trend of homebuilding persons moving out of the cities into the suburban areas including working people who now have. A bank cashier is a neighbor rather than another working man and the what the social it is called peer group pressures lead them into new voting behavior. Mr Lee other other things you see of importance here. I'd like to make one of two brains comments I think that Mr MacDonald's last remark about peer groups and their increasing influence is going to be most important in determining the future voting behavior of the American worker. I would however like to ask a longer range

question now raised it and that is what will be the effect of a future recession or depression in this country with respect to the political voting behavior of American workers last time it happened. They swung we might say left towards the New Deal. I'm not so sure that this would be the case next time Mr. Desboro all of those things you see that are important in this picture we haven't touched on. Well I would say that the labor movement will play an creasing the important role in raising the finances for candidates to be one of the big problems of the political parties and candidates is securing adequate financing. Mr. LEAVELLE implies we're doing better now and we have in the past and that's true but what he ignores is that we're labor want to be able to raise at least one third of the cost of a campaign for its endorsed candidates and today I doubt if it ever does 5 percent of the cost of a good campaign for its endorsed candidates. Thank you Mr dustbowl for joining with Mr Lee and Mr McDonald in this discussion of the place of labor in American political life today.

You've been listening to what next for the unions an examination of organized labor as a political force one in a series of discussion programs titled politics in the 20th century. First we heard from Samuel Lubell political analyst journalist and author as recorded in his study in New York that across the country to room six in the Department of Government at the moment college for a discussion of rebels. And I was conducted by Dr. Charles Nixon political scientist University of California Los Angeles. Dr. Frank Lee sociologist University of California Riverside and Dr. Lee MacDonald political scientist Mona college their special guest today. Well Mr. John dustball Secretary-Treasurer California industrial union council AFL CIO. This program was produced and transcribed by the community education project of San Bernardino Valley College under a grant from the National Association of educational broadcasters. This is the end AEB Radio Network.