Those remarks remain clear to me today, since they reflected the feelings of perhaps the majority of union members during the 1960s, even though by then the most prominent of U. S. labor leaders at the time, including AFL-CIO President George Meany, UAW President Walter Reuther and Teamsters Leader Jimmy Hoffa, openly supported the cause of equality for blacks and other minorities.
Such support was not always apparent on the workshop floor, at the construction sites and in the local union halls all over America where the cloud of racism hovered. Many white workers challenged the AFL-CIO's support of the voting rights act of 1965 and the civil rights act of 1964; many also challenged President Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" since it seemed, in their minds, to be aimed at aiding blacks disproportionately. Even the assassination of Robert Kennedy two months later (June 6, 1968) seemed to do little to lessen the feelings of disenfranchisement that many working class and poor whites felt over the attention given to the cause of civil rights. (Indeed, Sen. Kennedy had been closely identified with the cause of blacks during the period.)
To be fair, white workers, union and nonunion alike, were facing their own deprivations and lack of economic fortunes in the era, struggling to make ends meet. It was ripe territory for a demagogue, and Alabama Gov. George Wallace filled the role to perfection, running as a Third Party candidate in opposition to the Democratic nominee, Hubert H. Humphrey, whose open support of civil rights was legendary. In October of 1968, I gave a speech to a packed hall at a local union banquet in Avon Lake, Ohio, outlining our union's reasons for backing Humphrey, only to be heckled by ranks of members yelling out "Wallace, Wallace, Wallace," over and over again.
Union leaders have often been criticized by liberals and civil rights leaders through the years, sometimes being accused of being racist and often charged with being too timid in their support of equal rights. Some have deserved that criticism, but it is also historical truth that both union leadership and rank-and-file members were vital to the passage of the equal rights legislation of the 1960s and the real progress in equal rights that followed through the years.
Meany, a union plumber by trade, provided true leadership as shown, as an example, by his enforcing the AFL-CIO's position on school-busing as a tool to achieve integration by threatening to pull the charter of a Kentucky labor council which sought to oppose that position; Reuther spoke at the "March on Washington" in August 1963 just before King's memorable "I Have a Dream" speech and the UAW leader also worked to end racism in the auto plants; Jimmy Hoffa's wife marched in the South.
Meanwhile, black workers fought hard to win equality. At our Society's 1999 annual conference, several black workers told of their struggles to get jobs in Milwaukee, often in spite of their own union's reluctance. William Patterson, now deceased, told of becoming the Transit System's first black streetcar conductor in 1945 and finding other conductors or drivers shunning him; Bill Johnson, retired business manager of the Laborer's Union Local 113, said blacks were restricted to handling shovels and rakes in asphalt paving while whites drove the equipment; Mary Jo Avery of the Communication Workers said that blacks first were hired only in custodial jobs and that the first black telephone operator was harassed, only to have her job saved by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
This history is vital to understand in this year's Presidential election. In a perhaps unfortunate comment, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Dr. King's dream needed the political support of President Johnson to become reality. That was misconstrued by some as saying she believed that "whitey" had to act, and thus was demeaning to African-Americans.
In a democracy, progress is made by many groups, not just by one. Nothing would have happened if African-Americans had not struggled in marches and in soda fountain sit-ins and in the workplace to stand up for themselves; nothing would have happened if President Johnson had not led the way by openly sponsoring passage of civil rights legislation, even with the knowledge that his Democratic Party would eventually "lose" the South. It was indeed an act of political leadership and courage too rarely seen. (And, many also believe that he could not have achieved that save for the memory of John F. Kennedy, whose assassination was still fresh in the minds of Americans.) Finally, Johnson may not have been able to pass such legislation without the open support of organized labor, which in the 1960s was a true political power in the nation.
Dr. King understood the issues that worker rights and civil rights were linked. Remember, he was assassinated while in Memphis to support striking sanitation workers. Fortunately, today, there are few union members who would not be disgusted at hearing the remarks I heard 40 years ago in a Decatur, Ill., hotel restaurant.
Beware the warm, engaging smile! It can lure so many of us into taking actions that go against our own best interests.
As we approach the 2008 elections, we must look behind the appealing demeanor and pretty phrases of some of the candidates to see just what their political priorities are. It’s just such benevolent images that are propelling Mike Huckabee into a surprisingly competitive position in the Iowa Republican primary. This Bible-thumping conservative is indeed a charmer, perhaps a 21st Century Elmer Gantry who will win your favor while milking your pocketbook. Similarly, there’s the grandfatherly Fred Thompson. His rather avuncular shepherding of his staff attorneys on “Law and Order” has made him most appealing. Perhaps it’s his “aw-shucks” approach to campaigning that so many voters find attractive.
Both of these candidates, who currently seem to be on the upswing, are not what they seem to be at first glance. It’s important to look carefully at their past and their promises. Neither one of these men is hiding their true positions; they are just sugar-coating themselves so that the voters won’t get past the sweet outer surface to see what harm they would do to low- and middle-income Americans if they, by unfortunate happenstance, were to be elected in 2008. It’s no secret: these two candidates, as well as their opponents for the Republican nomination for President, will continue their policies of weakening labor laws and worker protections, of supporting wide-open trade practices to the detriment of U.S. workers, of cutting back on health care insurance access to poor and middle class people, of supporting privatization schemes for Social Security and Medicare, of continuing the war in Iraq indefinitely (except for Libertarian Ron Paul), of favoring tax cuts for the richest, and of any number of other actions that will lead even more destruction of the living standards of ordinary Americans.
Huckabee and Thompson, in particular, can be looked upon as reincarnations of Ronald Reagan, whose “morning in America” approach fooled a whole generation of Americans and led the way to the ongoing tragedy that has become a fact of life for so many working people and their families in the last 25 years. Make no doubt about it, Ronald Reagan smiled his way into the hearts of many Americans, proving that his acting skills may have been far more adroit than many gave him credit for. Recently, there has been attention given to his decision to speak at the county fair in Neosho, Mississippi, immediately after his nomination to President in 1980. Many said it was a blatant part of the Republican “Southern strategy” to win the votes of whites in the South, many of who had been Democrats. As we all know, that strategy sadly worked.
In his speech in Neosho, Reagan called for a renewal of “states’ rights,” which has always been code word for racist and anti-union policies. Reagan indeed may not have been racist in his heart, but who knows for sure. What he felt in his heart, however, is not important; it’s what he did that’s important.
As Bob Herbert wrote in his column in The New York Times (Nov. 13):
“He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation. “Congress overrode the veto." Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too.
“Throughout his career, Reagan was wrong, insensitive and mean-spirited on civil rights and other issues important to black people. There is no way for the scribes of today to clean up that dismal record.”
Most African-Americans weren’t fooled by the sunshine wash of Ronald Reagan, but most white working Americans were. They were lured by the “candy” handouts: Reagan’s myth of the welfare cheat, his jingoistic approach to patriotism, his supposed toughness on national security, and his idea of “less government.”
What they didn’t realize was that Reagan led the way to a weakening of their labor unions, and the resulting destruction of middle-class life. It was his action in firing 13,000 air traffic controllers in 1981 that turned the attitude of corporations and Republicans to outright warfare against labor. Prior to that, these entities had recognized the right of workers to organize and to have collective bargaining. This basic “social contract” was ended with the air traffic controllers’ firings. His anti-union actions were further highlighted by appointments to the National Labor Relations Board of business-oriented, anti-union types whose rulings made a mockery of a worker’s right to organize; his appointments to agencies like OSHA and the EPA were characterized by corporate types whose own firms had been fined for worker safety and environmental transgressions.
The litany of how Reagan began the downfall of middle America continues in many other ways, such as the weakening of the Federal Communications Commission and the deregulation of the trucking industry which has put thousands of unsafe, dangerous trucks on the road. And on and on. Thus, as you may be lured by the smiles and happy talk of Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and others in the current campaign, remember that behind all that joy and comfort may lie more disastrous times for workers and their families.
Some sites of interest: The Myth of Ronald Reagan An interview with Dolores Huerta and Francis Piven on Reagan as the ‘most dangerous President’ http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/11/1431250
Who is George Bush taking clues from? http://www.edsopinion.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=112&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 Bob Herbert’s column of Nov. 13, 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Bob%20Herbert&oref=slogin
PostsHighestRated Posts
