If the Labor press does not try to give Labor the whole truth, where will Labor get it? This, of course, raises the question: Who is right about Labor's destiny? Certainly we can't rely on the capitalist press to tell us, for it is obvious that their interest is the opposite of Labor's interest. But who, from the ranks of Labor? Let them all speak -- that's what Free Speech was intended for! Let them all present their view in a forum. From that the reader will have a fair chance to decide.
from the column, "Only More Democracy Can Save Democracy,"
The Searchlight, Oct. 29, 1949.
In the years following their historic 1936-1937 Sit-Down strike, the Flint Chevrolet workers created a local union newspaper, The Searchlight (UAW Local 659-Flint, Michigan). The masthead of the newspaper proclaimed itself "The Voice of the Chevrolet worker." From its beginnings in May, 1942, and through much of the 1950's, members of the local were able to use the newspaper as a forum for the voice of the rank and file auto worker.
Through the almost two decades that it managed to stave off suppression from the International Union, The Searchlight opened its pages to a wide spectrum of opinion from rank and file members. The newspaper printed articles, uncensored columns, cartoons, poetry, letters and shop news from a large number of contributors. And during W.W. II, it printed servicemen's letters sent to it from all over the world. Also, periodically letters to the editor appeared criticizing the local union leadership for interfering with rank and file access to the newspaper.
The discussion and debate filling the pages of The Searchlight helped the rank and file auto worker to clarify a number of important questions. The victory of the 1936-37 Flint auto workers' strike won the sit-downers a "freedom of the press" that they were able to exercise and guard throughout the 1940's and into the 1950's. Through The Searchlight, which was the newspaper of the largest of the Flint locals, the rank and file publicly debated their differences and criticized their foes. Not unexpectedly, with the suppression of the "Voice of the Chevrolet Worker" in the 1950's, the contribution of the previous decade was virtually blacked out. And the struggles and achievements of the Flint workers who produced The Searchlight have either been ignored by historians, or else maligned. For example, a paper, presented at a Labor History Conference, comparing workers from Flint, Michigan and Coventry, England, erroneously portrays the Flint working class after W.W. II as "conservative" and submissive to autocratic International leadership.
What follows is an effort to tell the story of The Searchlight as "The Voice of the Chevrolet Worker," by drawing on a small sampling of the kinds of contributions that appeared in it until this voice was all but publically silenced.
Carl Johnson was one of the pioneers of industrial unionism in Flint. From the early days of The Searchlight, until his death in 1958, Johnson wrote a column called "Only More Democracy Can Save Democracy." In this column, he discussed questions of democratic socialism, criticisms of capitalism, and other broad social and economic issues. And his column helped to articulate the importance to the rank and file worker of a newspaper uncensored by local or International union leadership.
Johnson's column of March 23, 1944 explains how the "uncensored" local union newspaper was one of the major components of the program of progressive unionists in his day. He outlines the three points of this program:
The first...a paper which permits a full range of uncensored opinion.
The second...round table discussions and forums.
The third...an independent political party.
A district meeting of editors from ten local union newspapers from Lansing, Saginaw, and Flint, was held at Local 659 in 1944. At this meeting the editors discussed "the uncensored column." "Such an item," the summary in The Searchlight explained, "would not only be valuable in telling the minority view, but by printing conflicting opinions side by side it would enlarge the reader's knowledge of his problem." (The Searchlight, Dec. 21, 1944, p.1)
In his column of Feb. 1, 1945, Johnson elaborates on how open discussion serves labor:
If local union publications...provide the ranks with a freer discussion which alone can prepare the ranks for the fight which is sure to be plenty tough, then we need not worry too much, for American labor provided in '36 and '37 that it can move fast and furiously when it knows where to go."
The hurdles he saw facing labor were not only how to deal with wages, hours, etc., but also how to bring about fundamental social change. He wrote:
We must bear in mind the obvious fact that our education institutions, the schools, the Daily press, the radio, etc., are all controlled by Big Business -- by that small section of the population which suffers little from the hardships of depression and war. As a matter of fact, depression and war are the result of the part Big Business plays in our economy. Does it stand to reason therefore that their controlled institutions will teach us how to change it?(March 1, 1945, p.3)
In 1951, Local 659 was preparing a convention challenge of the International Executive Board's interference with the editorial policy of The Searchlight. Johnson's column spelled out why the publication policy of a newspaper of the rank and file worker would inevitably come into conflict with the interests of the International leadership. He explained:
A paper controlled by the International, without the watchful eye of local shop-papers, would make it very easy for the top leadership to perpetuate themselves in office and form a bureaucracy. Such a situation would permit our top leaders to disregard the well being of the ranks even as far as unionism is concerned.More important, from a long range standpoint, however, is the fact that International publications are limited in the extent to which they spearhead progressive change. They are apt to confine themselves to matters connected solely with unionism such as the Taft-Hartley Act. That might be all right if unionism were the end solution which, however, it is not. The final solution to labor's problems will not be reached until those who do essential work, hand and brain, are in control instead of that non-essential class which controls because of ownership. But because that concept has not as yet gained popular clamour, our leadership will not stick their necks out to speak for it in their publications....
The rank and file are in a different position. They have nothing to lose by advancing ideas and opinions which may, for the time being, be at variance with popular concepts. Moreover, a rank and filer with ideas of change which promise greatly improved conditions for him as well as for his fellow workers has therein the necessary incentive to express those ideas. It is important to understand, therefore, that the future welfare of the rank and file depends largely upon the part the ranks play in shaping that future....
(January 11, 1951, p.2)
Johnson also saw the need for a local union newspaper to monitor the activities of the union leadership:
The working Rank and File must have some means of knowing what is going on in the union. That is the philosophy behind the "Searchlight"....The publicity organ of the union such as the "Searchlight" must provide full freedom of expression and be under the control of the ranks....Free union papers may not seem important but they make good watchdogs and they serve to bring the grass roots into the realm of our solely wanting democracy.(April 18, 1957, p.2)
The broad ranging polemics that Carl Johnson describes, as well as the debate over union demands and the overseeing of leadership filled the pages of The Searchlight during this 20 year period.
The end of W.W. II saw a rising spiral of prices, raising the question of how labor should deal with inflation. The question was taken up in The Searchlight. One columnist, explaining the problem, wrote:
There has been much discussion in Labor circles during these post war years about such things as `roll back prices'; `price control', `ability to pay', `escalator clauses', etc. in an effort to find a solution and a cure for Labor's economic ills.(Jan. 15, 1948, p.7)
A series of articles appeared in The Searchlight exploring the relationship of wages to prices. "Do Wages Determine Prices?" one article asked. Appearing in a column called "Winning for the union," the writer explained:
Prices go up or down depending on market conditions. When the boss puts his product on the market he can't set prices to suit himself. But in the long run the price of any article depends on its actual value. That is, on the number of hours of labor workers had to put in on it. That is what determines the price, regardless of whether the wages we get for labor is high or low. The price of a product, therefore, does not depend on wages.(June 5, 1947, p.3)
Referring to a recent wage increase, the writer observed that his rise in wages did not corrolate with an increase in prices:
In fact, when mass production methods were introduced in the automobile industry, the price of cars went down. This was because the labor time on each car was greatly reduced. Yet we automobile workers got higher wages through our union.(Ibid.)
The article goes on to show how higher wages don't cause higher prices, but they do result in lower profits:
Wages don't determine prices, but they do affect profits. Both profits and wages come from one source -- the value of the goods produced by labor. This means that if pay is raised it must come out of profits. Likewise, if wages are cut profits go up. That is why employers never willingly give wage increases. They know it comes from their pockets. They know it is wages and profits that are tied together, not wages and prices....The fact that they raise such a fuss every time we ask for more money shows that they don't believe their own argument.(Ibid.)
In another article in the series, the writer discusses how prices are determined:
You may as well know it. There is no `law' of supply and demand. Under competitive conditions it is value which will determine price over a period of time. Value is determined by the amount of necessary human labor required to produce the commodity under the latest technological development. Prices will fluctuate around value. When supply is below demand, prices will temporarily rise above value. If supply becomes greater than demand, prices will fall below value until production is reduced. That value is the basic determining factor in determing price can be seen when we ask ourselves what the price would be when supply and demand are equal. It is obvious, price would then equal value.(August 14, 1947, p.7)
The practical value of this discussion in 1947 was that there was a debate ongoing within the union over the appropriate contract demand. Based on their understanding that wages do not create inflation, but do lead to lower profits, the members of Local 659 put forward the "escalator clause" as the appropriate contract demand:
An escalator clause in every union contract whereby a sliding scale of wage increases will be granted for every percentage increase in prices. This is our answer to employer created inflation.(March 27, 1947)
After W.W. II, Walter Reuther, head of the U.A.W.-G.M. Department proposed that the corporations open their books. Unlike the Flint workers' analysis that profits and wages were in opposition, Reuther maintained that workers and G.M. would both benefit from a common policy. He maintained that both profits and wages could be increased without raising prices or else he would lower the union wage demands:
We are prepared to settle this demand for less than 30 percent, providing you can disprove our contention that wages can be increased 30 percent without increasing prices and you can still make a profit. If you can prove we can't get 30 percent, hold prices, and still make a nice profit, we will settle for less than 30 percent....
When Local 659 and four other Flint locals promoted a resolution in favor of an escalator clause in the upcoming 1948 contract talks, the International union leadership opposed the resolution, arguing that an escalator would freeze the standard of living of the workers. And a radio talk made by the President of Local 659 in January, 1948 in support of the escalator clause was criticized by the International union leadership for breaking "union discipline" and weakening "union solidarity" on the eve of crucial negotiations, by making public pronouncements in defiance of official union policy."
When the cost of living was won in 1948, Reuther claimed G.M. was responsible for introducing the idea of an escalator into the 1948 contract talks. This served to hide the real history of how local unions like Local 659 had fought for and won the cost of living (COLA) over the opposition of the International union leadership.
While the contributors to The Searchlight were able, to some degree, to solve the problem of inflation, they had less success on the political front.
In 1944, they had been active in the efforts to form the Michigan Commonwealth Federation, based on the Canadian Model of a labor party. In 1946, they again made an effort to contribute towards the formation of an independent political party to represent labor and working people.
The 1946 election was seen as a defeat for labor's policy of supporting the so called "friends" of labor (the CIO-PAC, i.e., the Political Action Committee). One columnist, analyzing the lessons of the lection, wrote:
After the battle comes the critique--as the military men say. And it isn't a half-bad idea. A review of our fight with a critical eye and a bit of speculation as to how we might have improved our position.Our position now is that we, the American people, have suffered a defeat in the elections by a so-called "Republican land-slide"....The people are fed up with the Truman administration and its betrayal of the New Deal....Generally speaking, the voters had little to vote for other than to protest a deal from the bottom of the deck. The public is the victim of a "bipartisan coalition"...The proof of what the people want is the victory of a third party in New York, the American Labor Party.
("The People's Mandate", Nov. 21, 1946, p.2)
The Presidental election was followed by anti-labor political initiatives like the Callahan Bill and the Taft Hartley Act. How was labor to deal with this political crisis? A number of articles appeared in The Searchlight proposing independent political action as the needed solution. One such writer explained:
Today every demand of the workers is shunned by the employers to their agents in Washington. The whole government is arrayed against labor's interests....Just as labor must conduct a militant, independent struggle on the economic field, simultaneously it must wage an independent political struggle aimed at winning government power. It is time to break once and for all with company unionism in the political field now.("To End Wars and Depressions," Aug. 28, 1947, p.3)
There was considerable debate over what form this independent political action should take. On this question, probably more than any other, the influence of the various radical groups over their sympathizers in the local was particularly apparent. The followers of Trotsky placed special emphasis that the party formed be strictly a "labor" party. While the Communist Party and its sympathizers opposed a "labor" party per se, and insisted instead that the proposed party be a "third" party, i.e. not restricted to labor. (e.g. See "We Need a Labor Party, Not a Third Party", Aug. 15, 1946, p.7; "Only a Fight for Democracy Can Save Democracy," Aug. 14, 1947, p.3; and "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Jan. 27, 1948, p.8.)
By 1948, one columnist declared that the effort to form an independent political party had failed. Citing a lack of democratic procedures at the local's labor party committee meetings, the columnist explained that a successful labor party "can never come from an already existing minority party." Though this columnist didn't feel the minority parties could lead a labor party, he felt they should be included.
"Of course," he wrote, "all parties should be embraced, but none should control it. It would have to be controlled by labor itself." He also cautioned against trusting the words of the union's International leadership. "Some of our educational committees are sure off the beam," he commented, "when they say R. J. Thomas [then UAW President-ed] is out for a labor party." He has been a vice-president of the National CIO for the past eight or ten years, and PAC, the political branch of CIO, has never come out for a labor party yet." This writer proposed that there was only one avenue toward resolving the problem of creating the needed party. "It is a dead cinch," he concluded, "that if a labor party is ever born in this country, it will have to come from the grass roots of the working class."
Another columnist who was a sympathizer of the Socialist Party [of Debs-ed] advised that the form of the party was not significant. Citing divergent beginnings of the British Labor Party and the Canadian Commonwealth Federation, he argued that any beginning would be adequate as long as there was "rank and file participation and education."("Addes and a Third Party," Nov. 7, 1946, p.8) In an earlier article, this columnist had explained that an uncensored local union newspaper was the pre-condition of the rank and file worker for supporting any labor party sponsored by the officers of the International Union. He wrote:
The conditions...that I would go along [with-ed]...on a party built by organized labor and led by its officers are that at the same time that a resolution is presented at the convention, that embodied in that resolution shall be a clause stipulating in most plain and emphatic terms that every local union must have some sort of rank and file organ of opinion and that that organ of opinion be open to all shades of political opinion as to what rank and file interests are.(Carl Johnson, "Only More Democracy Can Save Democracy: Political Action From Top Down Or From Bottom Up", August 3, 1944)
Besides the debate over the form a party should take, some (like Wobbly sympathizers in the local) felt an independent political party would be a harmful diversion from developing the labor union. As one such contributor explained:
I used to be of the opinion that workers could win concessions through politicians who professed to be friends of labor, but now I know better. What the workers need is a strong union that refuses to sell them out to the bosses or politicians. But we don't have one....In closing, I appeal to you to forget the political parties, the red-baiting campaigns and all other drives that are detrimental to the Union. Let's combine our forces to restrain the Murrays, the Reuthers...and all others of their ilk from hoodwinking us (the dues payers) into forgetting our Union issues and degrading ourselves into personal attacks or some other issue that lies outside the union.
("How Many Strikes Before You're Out?", Oct. 7, 1948, p. 6)
Along with these polemics, the local formed a labor party committee, ran candidates in Flint local elections, held meetings, and passed resolutions asking the International union to promote a labor party. After the failure of the 1948 Progressive Party campaign with Henry Wallace running for President, however, the question of an independent political party for labor receded into the background, unsolved.
Influenced by the working class tradition of Eugene Debs,
the pages of The Searchlight echoed with criticisms of supporting
big business in their wars, as in "A New Year With Old Trim," one
of the many poems that appeared in the newspapers pages.
A New Year comes, an Old Year goes
And with its passing all the woes
That ill-befalls the working class
Are passed in parcel to he who works
By grace of Greed and he who shirks
The pangs of toil or call of Brass.
The war was fought, the war was won
By those who made and used the gun
But all the spoils went to the few
Who beat the drum and waved the flag
And used the printed page to brag
Of how they'd made the world anew.
(Jan. 15, 1948, p.2)
Such sentiments were expressed in letters and articles as
well. During W.W. II, The Searchlight carried a letter from a
serviceman condemning the war:
God's on our side, they tell us. Well, that's good. I sup-
pose he was the one that tore the head off a body I found
yesterday. Without the head, and with most of the uniform
gone, it was hard to tell at first that he was, or rather
had been, an enemy. But God must have known, because, bam --
off went his head! (I don't know who takes the heads off our
boys.)
Christmas, 1944, and here I am sitting looking down at a
big brown stain at the bottom of my pant-leg, sort of
wondering who it came from, and if whoever he was had a girl
like Helen waiting for him, and folks like you and Dad and
Mom at home.
(Jan. 4, 1945, p. 1-2, see also footnote 16)
Such sentiments appeared during the Korean War as well, as
in this open letter:
You see, if it weren't for the PHONY WAR program, we
wouldn't have to contribute so much to the upkeep of the
bosses wholesale global murder. You then could also be
fairly sure you weren't raising your kids for gun fodder in
order to protect a lousey system that should have been put
out of business long ago.
(Nov. 15, 1951, p.4)
And these same sentiments were conveyed in the poem "Of Wage
Slaves and Caesars," published June 14, 1951:
Omar Khayyam, the Persian poet, said:
`Me thinks there never bloomed a rose so red
As where some dying Caesar bled!'
But down the ages since his time
Most other poets in their rhyme
Have sung of Caesars as sublime,
Whose warring quests they glorified
And praised the peons who bled and died--
But wars have filled no empty maws
Nor won the workers no holy cause.
Not only did The Searchlight open its pages to criticism of
the policies of management and politicians, but it also took up
to praise the brave deeds of the unsung heroes from its ranks.
When militant unionists became seriously ill or died, they were
eulogized in articles, as in these excerpts from the obituary of
Jimmy Kiger:
Jimmy Kiger died as he lived. He fought heroically against a
dreaded disease....On his death certificate they will write
`Death due to cancer.' We can truthfully say that Jim Kiger
was killed by a social system that has outlived its useful
purpose to man....It smashed at his physical body through
the years with its crises, depressions and devastating wars.
The most telling blow was the recent news of the death of
his son, CALVIN, on the carnage fields of Korea. This dread-
ful report came while cancer was spreading relentlessly
through his system....Thus died a Chevrolet Union militant
who had served his brothers in Union struggles as an elected
officer of our local....Even as a holder of many posts,
Jim Kiger considered himself as a rank and file member of
the labor movement....Jim denounced the Korean War before
and after the death of his son. Jim Kiger could not be
intimidated or silenced. He was not that kind of man.
(Oct. 18, 1951, p.3)
And the heroic deeds of the rank and file were eulogized in
poetry, as in "The Curtain's Down":
In all respects, let it be said:
The curtain's down, the act is o'er
The Reaper's played the final score
And many mourn because you're dead.
It's surely true the world's a stage
With each a part -- a chosen role
And time alloted for each soul
To play it's part and turn the page.
To those of us still in the show.
We'll not forget how well you played--
The Union Man so unafraid --
That boss-men knew how far to go.
The rebel cause was better served
Because of honest men like you
Who played THE MANY AND THE FEW
Without the honor they deserved.
(Dedicated to the pleasant memory of
Clyde Boone, a good and faithful unionist who passed the
"Great Divide" on May 30th 1963.)
(June 20, 1963)
By 1949, an important question being discussed in the U.A.W.
was pensions.
During this same period, a debate over the virtues and
criticisms of capitalism appeared in The Searchlight. In an
article called "The Welfare State," the writer criticized that a
"Socialist or what's worse, a welfare state" was growing up in
the U.S. (See December 15, 1949). Carl Johnson's column in the
following issue carried a response:
When union members find themselves in the wide disagreement
indicated by Brother...'s article...on questions of vital
importance to the future of Labor, it is necessary to debate
those question.
Regarding the so-called Welfare State, when it provides
unemployment insurance, health insurance, old age pensions,
aid to education, etc., it is NOT giving labor something for
nothing....It is not Socialism, but rather an attempt to
give labor, to a limited extent, the social services it can
expect from Socialism. It is promoted by non-Socialists not
to bring Socialism, but to forestall Socialism.
(Dec. 29, 1949, p.2)
The author of "The Welfare State" article replied:
While I am aware of, and am opposed to, the enormous profits
made and the abuses permitted under the free enterprise
system, I am convinced the world had made more progress
under the system than any other method that has been tried
in over 26 civilizations that this world has seen....If we
are to continue a free people here in America with its
present standard of living, then there must be money to
plan, to invest, to manufacture, to advertise and to sell,
all creating jobs for countless millions.....The free
enterprise system has transformed this country from a young
poor country into the wealthiest nation on earth in spite of
two world wars.
(March 9, 1950)
Others joined the debate.
Bert Boone, who had been the President of Local 659 from
1944 to 1945, and had returned to the shop when his bid for
reelection was defeated, added his contribution. He wrote:
A few scissorbills(17) are alarmed at the Welfare State.
Those few alarmists have either heard some politician
squeal that way or have read it in some of these wonderful
unbiased dailies. Some defend the so-called Free Enterprise
system. There is no such thing. Free Enterprise is as
extinct as Democracy. We only have MONOPOLY CAPITALISM....As
for the Welfare State, that is a deliberate lie. More than
one half of President Truman's federal budget was earmarked
for WAR, only 6 per cent for so-called welfare. It looks
more like a military state to me.
(March 23, 1950, p.2)
His solution to the problem was the Wobbly ideal of one big
Union:
Workers must liberate themselves -- the labor skates and
politicians won't do it. They'll connive to cheat labor.
Let's build a real labor union and abolish capitalism.
Let's leave Washington and Lansing to the politicians. We'll
let them run the weather bureau while we run the works to
make life abundant for us.
Boone had opposed the International union leadership's "No
Strike Pledge" during his presidency, and the International had
opposed his efforts to run for another term in office. When he
was defeated in 1945, he appealed the results of the election
citing 868 unregistered ballots that had appeared in the election
count in excess of the local's membership.(18) Returning to the
shop, he contributed articles for The Searchlight until his death
on April 9, 1969.(19) Boone's term in office was considered by
many to have set a model for open and above board leadership.(20)
Another columnist to jump into the "Free Enterprise" debate
was George Carroll. He had served as the first editor of The
Searchlight from 1942 - 1945. He criticized any favorable
protrayal of "Free Enterprise" writing:
This article is not in any sense to be considered a brief for
any ism, creed or philosophy, but if so-called "Free Enter-
prise" advocates do not soon curb their rampant rapacity,
they will soon find themselves tottering on the brink of an
economic grave.
No system can long endure which permits corporations to
arrogantly boast of profits of more than half of billion
dollars while in another section of the same country hundreds
of thousands of American workers are reported to be starving
and Veterans who fought to preserve the right to continued
existence are forced to live in habitations little better
than pens or dog kennels.
(April 6, 1950, p.3)
Carroll's column "Your Poverty Flat and Mine" appeared off
and on(21) until his death in October, 1954.(22) He had been
active in the early days of Local 659, during and after the Sit
Down Strike of '37, serving as committeeman and then helping to
establish The Searchlight in May, 1942. As editor during the war
years, he was also an active member of Local 659 "draft dodgers
committee" which worked to expose so that supervisors and company
men did not get preferential treatment at their draft boards.
To protest Bert Boone's election defeat under very
questionable circumstances, Carroll resigned as editor of The
Searchlight. Summarizing his term as editor, he wrote:
`The Searchlight' is the only (local union) paper which has
ever been damned by the heads of General Motors in the Public
press, and the only paper ever blasted by name on the conven-
tion floor by R.J. Thomas. And all simply because I thought
it was my duty to keep our membership informed in regard to
matters which concerned them, which I did and for which I
have no apologies to make.
(March 5, 1945, p.1)
Not only did The Searchlight take on the social, political
and economic problems confronting the rank and file union
member(24), but it also took up its obligation to debate and
criticize the policies and actions of union leaders.
By 1949, a bitter feud had developed between The
Searchlight's policy of maintaining an uncensored press and
Walter Reuther's efforts to consolidate his control of the U.A.W.
Reuther had negotiated the first U.A.W. Pension Plan with the
Ford Motor Company. Local 659 had wanted:
1) Pension Plan for all GM workers with 20 years service or
55 years of age, whichever comes first.
2) Health, hospitalization, medical and life insurance paid
for by the corporation.
(Dec. 1, 1949, p.3)
The pages of The Searchlight bristled with criticisms and
resolutions opposing the inadequacy of the Ford agreement.(25)
The text of the plan was printed as well as accounts of the
International Union's letters and meetings to try to curb its
Flint opposition. Walter Reuther was the subject of some harsh
criticism printed in The Searchlight. One article complained:
Due to his miserable settlement with Ford, President Walter
Reuther has suffered a severe loss of prestige among the UAWA
ranks and local leaders. If you wonder why, read the Ford
agreement.
(Nov. 3, 1949, p. 3)
Another article predicted that Reuther would followed in the
former U.A.W. President Martin's footsteps:
I was just wondering if the Ford Motor Company is planning on
giving Buster(26) Reuther a good position when he is defeated
for reelection at the next UAW Convention.
If I remember correctly, this was done to Buster Homer
Martin, the ex-preacher and former President of the Auto
Workers....The Busters in General Motors have struggled
along with these lousy contracts that Buster Reuther has
been getting but that Pension Plan at Fords has brought the
curtain down on his ACTS.
(Nov. 3, 1949, p.3)
Throughout this struggle over the Ford Pension Plan, issues
of local union autonomy and the right to criticize union leader-
ship were repeatedly reaffirmed by rank and file members.
Coburn Walker, president of Local 659 during this period, and
a former Reuther supporter, had taken up active opposition to the
Ford Plan. Letters in The Searchlight applauded this opposition as
representative of the rank and file. One letter in the January 26,
1950 issue said:
Coburn Walker stated his position in the Searchlight so the
entire membership could understand that which was supposed to
be the pattern for the rest of us who toil for our daily
bread in the Auto Industry. THAT was the proper thing for our
President to do. He is our servant (not our boss) and it's no
secret that the entire membership has certainly criticized
the Ford Pension.
Another letter in the January 12, 1950 issue complained
about the attacks by the U.A.W. International on Walker.
I think he [Coburn Walker -ed] has done a fine job and I feel
he had every right in the world to criticize the Ford Pension
Plan without being attacked by our Regional office.
And in "The President's Column," which appeared in every
issue during this period, Coburn Walker charged that the 40,000
letters sent to all Flint members of the U.A.W. by the
International Officers criticizing opposition to the Ford Plan
was a violation of Local Union Autonomy. He wrote:
Since under the International Constitution we are guaranteed
local autonomy, and since we are obligated by the mandates of
our local union to carry out the policy and program as laid
down by the rank and file, we feel it is most regrettable
that the International Executive Board should have taken the
action which they did and which is confirmed by the letter
dated December 1. On the other hand, it may be prompted by
some individual member of the Executive Board who had more
interest in the future and the perpetuation of his job than
the membership whom he represents....If and when the proce-
dure becomes such that a Local Union cannot voice its posi-
tion with resolutions or in their local publications, then we
feel it is high time the International Constitution be
changed so that such will be permitted...Shall we retain our
local autonomy or are we just a dues-collecting agency?
(Dec. 15, 1949, p.3)
In 1949, the International leadership recommended that the
rank and file vote in favor of the Union Shop during the upcoming
election. Articles like "Union Shop Vote: Chevrolet Local Aims
for 100% Union Shop" appeared in the paper listing 21 reasons why
members should vote for the union shop, quoting from a UAW General
Motors Department publication.(Dec. 29, 1949)
In the January 26, 1950 issue, a rebuttal was printed titled
"21 Or Bust." (27) In it the writer listed 21 questions and their
answers warning of the consequences of voting for the "Taft-
Hartley Union Shop." Among the objections he listed were:
1. Is the Union Shop something new in the Chevrolet?
Certainly not, the management gave you one in the '30's.
Brought your membership cards to you in person and let you
vote for representation on their own line. Homer Martin, in
his heyday, tried to sell you one to offset any opposition.
2. Will the Taft Hartley Union make our union stronger? In
numbers, yes, economically no, because all the power will
drift to the top. Management and Union boys will get married
so to speak, and quit their clandestine courtship....
6. Why do the top Union officials want a Union Shop under
this plan? Because it is the easiest way out and it will
become an automatic union where the boss will not only
collect the dues but do the organizing, too, and you'll
never know you have a union only when you see the deductions
on the pay stubs....
11. How does labor history show that union and closed shops
were gained? Not by the politicians paternalism, nor by the
bosses' bountiful goodness, but by hard-fought years of class
struggle. Not by collaboration and collusion.
The writer of "21 or Bust", realizing that he was bucking
the tide in putting forward these sentiments appealed to his
readers to give him a fair hearing: "So my fellow union workers,
in voicing my personal experiences, observations and beliefs in
opposition to this crucial question, I am only asking you to bear
in mind that there is always two sides to any issue and both
should be heard without any malice or mayhem, without fear or
favor. Let the truth be found in the balance of reason. That's
democracy...."(Jan. 26, 1950, p.1)
The publication of "21 Or Bust" was met with both praise and
condemnation. One article, "Do We Want a Union" by Bert Boone
defended the author of "21 Or Bust" writing:
Certainly every worker with one bit of human morality wants a
Union. A GENUINE ONE, TOO! However, militant union people
prefer to build a union and not secure one through
paternalism as seems to be the pattern of the shroud that had
been cut for our union today.... The writer of '21 or Bust'
expressed my sentiments 100 per cent. I am in favor of every
worker joining the union through the program of the workers
and not the employer.... Beware of a gift from the boss.
(Feb. 23, 1950, p.4)
Another article, appearing in the column "State of the
Union," explained that the writer had only recently come to agree
with "21 Or Bust." In this article "Chiselers and Pork Choppers
Attempt to Raise Dues", the columnist explained:
Some time ago during the Union Shop election, a brother...
pointed out that once we got a Union Shop we would become
goats for the unscrupulous leadership to exploit as they
pleased. I disagreed then, but now in view of the twelve
dollar assessment we just paid and the proposed dues in-
crease, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the brother wasn't
right.
(Sept. 7, 1950, p.1)
Condemnation of "21 Or Bust" appeared immediately. For
example, in an article called "I Don't like It" (Feb. 9, 1950),
the writer argued:
That piece in the union paper ["21 Or Bust" - ed]... said we
shouldn't vote for the Union Shop sure made me mad.... I think
everyone should be made to join the union, even if they don't
believe in it. We should make them pay their way.
In response to these condemnations, Coburn Walker in his
President's column, reviewed the anti-censorship policy of The
Searchlight which had been passed by the membership in 1948. He
wrote:
As President of the Local and ex-officio member of the Publi-
city Committee,I feel that unwarranted attacks have been made
on the Publicity Committee by a certain group within the
Local for having permitted Brother ... the right to voice his
views on the Union Shop.
(Oct. 19, 1950)
Walker then referred to the anti-censorship resolution
passed September 12, 1948, which in part reads:
Whereas: Chevrolet Local 659 maintains a paper published
twice monthly for the express purpose of the exchange of
ideas and thoughts of said members; and
Whereas; The membership of Local 659 has on numerous occa-
sions defined the duties of The Searchlight staff as being
EDITORS and NOT CENSORS and to reject only those articles
that are libelous or not in good taste, and UNDER NO CIRCUM-
STANCES WERE THEY TO REJECT ARTICLES MERELY BECAUSE THE
OPINIONS EXPRESSED DID NOT COINCIDE WITH THEIR OWN.
(Oct. 19, 1950)
But it was not just the "certain group within the local"
referred to by Coburn Walker, who were disturbed about the publi-
cation policy of The Searchlight. In response to the article
"Chiselers and Pork Choppers Attempt to Raise Dues" which had
appeared in the Sept. 7, 1950 issue of The Searchlight, one of the
officers of the International Union wrote a response printed in
the October 19, 1950 issue of The Searchlight. He complained:
Although the author of this scurrilous article didn't have
the courage to use my name it is quite obvious that the
union officer he had reference to was me.... I resent being
called a "Chiseler and pork chopper."
The "State of the Union" columnist retorted:
I did not and do not lack the courage to use the... name. The
truth is that I was referring to statements made by some of
his "Yes Men" of the FDR-CIO Labor School in Port Huron.
However, if...[the-ed] foot fits the shoe, I have no objec-
tion to his claiming the title of "Chiseler and Pork
Chopper."
(Oct. 19, 1950, p.1)
The columnist then went on to call into question the various
expenses of the International Union, pointing out that the
purported rationale for the dues increase was to build up a $25
million strike fund to `prevent as many strikes as possible' but
that the recently signed 5 year contract in fact ruled out
strikes for the foreseeable future.
In 1950, the International leadership had sent out a letter
to local newspaper editors informing them that an International
Union publications board would review their publications for pos-
sible libel and conformity with International policy.(29) On the
morning of December 12, 1950, at 8:30 a.m. a telegram addressed to
Coburn Walker, President, was delivered to the Local's office. The
telegram read:
The International Executive Board is requesting that you
appear before it on Wednesday, December 13, 1950, at 4 p.m.,
room 808, Book Cadillac Hotel, Detroit, Mich., to show cause
why the policies and stories carried in the "Searchlight",
publication of 659 are in violation of the policies of the
International Union, UAW-CIO.
(Dec. 14, 1950, p. 1)
The telegram was signed "By Order of the International
Executive Board."
When Local 659's officers and The Searchlight's Editorial
Board appeared as requested, they were told that the International
Executive Board had reviewed issues of the newspaper from October,
1949 to November, 1950 and had found the content of the newspaper
to be "anti-union."
The Local was ordered to change the editorial policy of the
newspaper and to print a copy of the International's condemnations
in The Searchlight.
The Executive Board's statement to be printed in The
Searchlight said in part:
Specifically, the "Searchlight" has consistently been in
violation of UAW-CIO policy in that (a) it made repeated
attempts to sabotage and weaken the Union's campaign for a
union shop in General Motors, and (b) in attempts to sabotage
collection of emergency strike assistance which had been
approved by an overwhelming majority of the Convention, and
(c) in many other cases too numerous to mention.... The Board
has further ordered the officers of Local 659 to cease and
desist publication of material which, by impartial judgment,
would be anti-union in character.
The Officers of Local 659 are also asked by the Board to
make every attempt to eliminate false, misleading and biased
material from the `Searchlight'; and to include, wherever
reasonable or possible, points of view which differ from
those of the local Officers or editors of the `Searchlight'.
The Board specifically stated that nothing in its action
should be construed to limit or impair in any way the right
of the membership, the local officers, or the `Searchlight'
to criticize, differ or oppose.
(Dec. 28, 1950, p.1)
After reviewing the International Executive Board's
condemnation of their newspaper, Local 659 filed a grievance to
be heard at the U.A.W. Convention in April, 1951. They prepared a
defense, citing the U.A.W. Constitution precedents on freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, and local autonomy.
During this period, The Searchlight's pages carried rank and
file expressions of consternation and opposition to the
interference with their newspaper. One article compared the
actions of the International Executive Board with those of
Hitler. The article called "What Do YOU Want?" said:
The enemies of "The Searchlight" Editorial Staff have been
laying down a continual barrage of words by which they expect
to conceal their real intentions. In spite of all their fog
and mist of words, they have not been able to obscure the
real issues, which is: [Will - ed] `The Searchlight' be able
to continue its policy of free and open discussion, or will
it forget those things and devote its pages to Walter Reuther
and the International Executive Board?
Some people are going to a lot of trouble to peddle the
propaganda that criticism of those in office is worng -- that
we should do just as we are told and not complain about it.
That maybe things aren't perfect now but they will somehow or
other get much better. That criticism of Reuther and the
Executive Board will create disunity and disruption and is
therefore to be considered as Union treason....
This is just the same line of baloney that Hitler sold to
the German people; that above all they should not beef or
gripe about those who are in positions of authority.... The
first thing he did when he came in power was take away the
right of free speech, free press, and adjustment of
grievances where the people might register a complaint.
(Dec. 28, 1950, p.2)
Another contribution to the paper, defended in verse the
constructive role played by criticism:
Sometimes I pan the Company
Their Supervision too
I also pan our Local, But,
Right now I'm panning you
Please tell me Mr. Ruether(sic)
`Bout the freedom of the press
But that must be for other folks
And not for us I guess....
The contract may be very good
But do you think it fair
Altho' there's points that I dislike
My gripes I cannot air?
After two other verses, the poet ended his refrain:
And now I'll end this little rhyme
But tell me if you can
When a little criticism
Ever hurt an honest man.
(Dec. 28, 1950, p.2)
The article "Labor Fakirs Protect Interest of Capitalism!"
was also printed in the December 28, 1950 issue of The
Searchlight. It proposed an economic analysis of the International
Union leadership. The article explained:
It has become a problem of the industrial employing class to
create a buffer class at the economic boundary between itself
and [the -ed] industrial working class. This problem is well
on its way to a solution which is contained in the develop-
ment of the leadership, officialdom and bureaucracy of the
conservative labor organizations....
These labor fakirs develop a vested interest in perverted
authoritarian `Unionism'. Like any exploiting class, they
find it necessary to build special organizational machinery
within unions to serve their interests. This is manifest by
cliques, machines, undercover operators, stool-pigeons,
hatchet men, and goon squads.
Added to the direct corruptive influence of this kind of
`Unionism' is the attraction it offers to the worst types of
opportunists, crum-seekers, and working class traitors.
To the workers, these imposters, brazenly or with hypocri-
tical modesty as the circumstances require, credit themselves
with being fighters in the class struggles ... with being
necessary for the conduct of future struggles. On this basis
they justify their fat salaries and tenures of offices....
Workers must abolish the buffer class within Unions.
Meaning the abolition of the reasons for the existence for
this buffer class.
The article offered the following recommendations to deal
with the problem it had outlined:
The rates of pay of all officials must be kept equal to or
below the average wage rate of the workers they represent.
The source of all authority within the Union must come from
the exercise of the workers. `Authority must not be
delegated.'
Nothing more than function should be delegated.
Function should be delegated only to members subject to
recall at all times; whose activities are subject to open
scrutiny by other functionaries and by membership generally;
who must make detailed reports at frequent intervals to the
membership to whom they are responsible. Tenure of office
must be short.
The article ends with the call for the membership to take
control of the union.
A membership meeting of the local, attended by an "overflow
crowd" protested the International Executive Board's actions, and
a petition was circulated and signed. Other criticisms --
cartoons, articles and letters make up the pages of The
Searchlight up to the April, 1951 International Union Convention.
One letter was written by Ed. Cronck, a rank and file
leader of the `37 Sit-Down. Titled "Honest Criticism Hurts No
One", the article reviewed the history of the Reuther brothers.
The writer addressed Walter Reuther with an indictment:
Do you remember how you and your brothers used to tell
us ... how every local should have its own Local autonomy,
and their own Local paper?
(March 8, 1951)
The letter goes on to defend local trade union autonomy.
I believe that we who work in the plants have a right to
our Local. That is the only way we have to tell you when we
think you are wrong. Do you remember Walt, when you told us
that no officer of our Union should stay out of the plant
over 2 years because he forgets all about the worker in the
plant? You should go back in the plant and run for
Committeeman so you could find out what you and your friends
gave us in the G.M. Contract to bargain with. I think that
you would leave the country, you would be so ashamed of
yourself.... I believe you have given away everything that
we ever did have on the bargaining.
(March 8, 1951)
Other letters published in The Searchlight during this period
helped to clarify what the rank and file felt was at stake in the
fight. One said:
Under the five year contract we are not supposed to have to
worry about keeping the union organized and should be able to
spend out [sic] time in educating and organizing our member-
ship.
What's been done? The contract is almost a year old and
instead of the International coming out with a large educa-
tional program which they should be able to afford in view of
the facts that the Union Shop and Dues Checkoff should enable
them to cut way back in their organizing staff and direct the
money saved there into building a stronger and more militant
Union, ruled by the membership.
Instead it seems the five years is to be spent in building
a political machine so strong that the little man will be
unable to raise his voice in objection of any kind. Already
this machine is responsible for the five year contract with
its company security clauses which take away the only real
bargaining power that the working man has (that is to strike
if the Company won't bargain). The contract also contains the
waiver clause which prevents the Union from bargaining on any
unforeseeable condition that may develop in the five years.
Now, this machine wants to increase the dues to $2.50 and
to have the convention every four years and to have four-year
election of officers. At that rate we won't have anything
more than a dues collection agency, which we will pay high dues
for the privilege of working in a sweat shop which is exactly
what the Assembly Plant is and what the company is trying to
do in its other plants.
(Feb. 22, 1951, p.3)
Not only were letters from members of Local 659 printed, but
The Searchlight also received and printed letters from other UAW
locals supporting the fight and asking for copies of the newspaper
to distribute in their areas. For example, from Chicago:
The story of your fight for Local Union autonomy and free
expression has recently been brought to my attention. It is
for this reason that I am taking this opportunity to express
my admiration, respect and agreement with your position....
Under Reuther opposition of a genuine nature is `verboten'.
Much of the rank and file knows that everything is run from
the top down and feel that protests are of no avail.... Our
union must be restored to its previous course of rank and
file control.
(Feb. 22, 1951, p.4)
And from Local 742, UAW-CIO:
I would be interested in distributing 500 copies of your
January 25 issue, or any further issues exposing censorship
of your splendid paper.
I am certain that the story of the attempt to abridge your
right of free press would arouse support for your efforts
among the membership of my Local, Local 742, UAW-CIO.
(Feb. 22, 1951)
In April, 1951, the UAW convention convened in Cleveland.
Article 28, Section 8 of the UAW Constitution was used to justify
the International's suppression of The Searchlight:
Local publications shall conform with the policies of the
International Union.
An editorial from Ford Facts reprinted in the April 19, 1951
issue of The Searchlight describes what happened at the
convention:
One of the most serious things that took place at the UAW
convention in Cleveland last week was something which re-
ceived little notice in the newspapers.... We are referring
to the action of the convention in its condemnation of the
"Searchlight"....
In this particular instance our leaders have chosen to
interpret any criticism of themselves or their ideas as being
in violation of Article 28, Section 8. This, they apparently
think, gives them a license to muzzle any publication which
has the temerity to question the wisdom of their program or
policies.... The `Searchlight' was spanked by Reuther's con-
vention and the majority of the delegates faithfully obeyed
their master by granting the International Union the
authority to crack down on any local union publication that
does not follow union policy -- as determined by
Reuther... and Company.
The Searchlight had lost the battle at the convention, but it
continued the fight locally. Its resistance had been far from
extinguished. In its pages it continued to defend local autonomy
and an uncensored local union press.
The skirmishes with the International and the struggle of The
Searchlight to repeal the suppression continued for a number of
years. In July, 1951, issues of The Searchlight were barred from
the CIO School. (See The Searchlight, July 12, 1951.) In 1952, a
resolution was passed by the membership of Local 659 welcoming
rank and file criticism of union officers. It read in part:
be it further
RESOLVED: Any member of this Local may submit articles
criticizing or acclaiming any officer on the conduct of his
office.
(Jan. 24, 1952, p.1)
In reading through The Searchlight after 1951, there are
periods of lively debate and then periods of only praise for the
International. In 1954 the International put Local 659 into
receivership and 14 members were brought to trial on charges, some
for articles published in The Searchlight.(31)
In 1956, The Searchlight was again criticized for having
violated the International's publication policy and a representa-
tive from the International's Public Relations Department "was
appointed to examine all future articles before publication in
order to elimninate antiunion material."(32) Once again, the man-
date used by the International Union to justify this censorship
was that of the 1951 convention.
In 1957, Carl Johnson's column hailed the lifting of the most
recent censorship, elaborating on the need for the newspaper by
the rank and file:
The release of the Searchlight should be hailed by the "Rank
and File," as a rebirth of Democracy, not only to protect it
from the racketeers and Bureaucracy, but to give the ranks an
opportunity to express their opinions and aspirations
politically. I say politically, because unionism alone
though absolutely essential to avoid industrial slavery,
cannot fulfill the needs of labor in an ever increasing
capitalist monopoly system, which exists only by wars and
production of armaments and increasing national debt.
(Sept. 12, 1957, p. 2)
Despite these efforts, by the early 1960s, articles critical
of the policies of the International Union, or raising the broad
issues confronting the labor movement appeared less and less
frequently.
The battle had been fought for years, but as Jack Stieber
notes in his book Governing the UAW, by the early 1960s, "Contro-
versial articles of any kind are notable by their absence,"(33)
not only in other UAW papers, but in The Searchlight as well.
But at this time, the great gains that had been won by the
UAW pioneers were also being summarized. "Each generation," wrote
one of Flint's labor pioneers, "has to solve its own problems. The
sit-down generation solved the problem of organization. The
postwar generation solved the problem of pensions and inflation.
Not entirely, but a good start was begun." (April 21, 1960, p.2)
He might well have added that it was in fact the forum provided by
The Searchlight that made it possible for the post war generation,
as he calls it, to sort out and build the necessary theoretical
clarity and organizational solidarity to win increased wages,
cola, pension and insurance gains.
This writer, in his article, acknowledges though, that there
are certain outstanding problems that were not solved by his
generation. "The present generation," he says, "is faced with the
greatest problems of all. They are Automation, Peace and
Politics." (Ibid.)
The rank and file, in general, lost access to the rich
variety of polemic and criticism that had been published in The
Searchlight while it was "The Voice of the Chevrolet Worker." But
one letter to the editor, published in the heat of the struggle
against censorship summarized the lesson that the writer had drawn
from the experience:
Brother, that is a gloomy picture, so I'll tell you the one
thing in our favor. We, the workers, have a better
understanding of these forces now at work and the forewarned
are forearmed.
(Feb. 21, 1951, p.2)
And gradually, through the years, a tradition sprang up,
alive until February 11, 1988, of celebrating the anniversary of
The Great Flint Sit Down strike. In at least one issue a year
(occasionally in more), in the issue falling closest to February
11, the anniversary of the victory of the Flint Sit Down of `37,
the pages of The Searchlight were opened up to articles, poems,
etc. about Flint's labor battles, and pioneer union builders and
others were allowed to comment on and criticize the current
direction of the labor movement as a commemoration of the rich
and ongoing struggle of the auto workers.
A professor at the Harvard Business School, in an article in
the Harvard Business Review called "Why History Matters to
Managers" explains the importance of this Feb. 11 commemoration
of the Flint Sit Down Strike in labor newspapers like The
Searchlight. He acknowledges:
It is important for our students to know something
about...the [General Motors] Flint Strike in Michigan in
1936-37. Why?....For many years, UAW journals and magazines
commemorated it and carried accounts of the celebrations and
speeches with which the unions have kept the memory of the
strike alive. It is terribly important for our students to
know this kind of stuff because they are going to have to
deal with the heritage of disrespect that has grown up
between unions and management.
(HBR, Jan.-Feb. 1985, p.82)
So The Searchlight, while it was the "Voice of the Chevrolet
Worker" was the continuation of the "heritage of disrespect" of the
sit-downers, by which they criticized and debated the policies and
practices of their union, and thus continued their fight against
management.
One editor of The Searchlight, during the fight against
censorship, summarized the role the newspaper had played in the
building of the UAW. He wrote:
Our paper, the Searchlight has been instrumental in building
and maintaining this great Local 659,...commonly known as the
father of the UAW....From the grassroots of our organization
or the floor of the production lines and Machine Dept. came
the private peeves or inequalities that were being per-
petuated on our people. This privilege MUST be main-
tained....From the "grass roots" of our organization came the
contract changes including the Escalator Clause, which was
cussed at, later adopted, cussed at and readopted, which is
proof positive that we are not always wrong.
I ask you, the membership, this pertinent question: Should
your paper the SEARCHLIGHT be permitted to voice this disap-
proval of portions of the PENSION and five year plan or must
we call it the answer to a 'maiden's prayer' until May, 1955
and then ask G.M. for a better one...Preserve your hard won
HERITAGE the Searchlight.
(Jan. 25, 1951)
Thus, the story of The Searchlight is a very important
story which helps to explain the seeds that gave birth to the
U.A.W., and it was the U.A.W. that helped to nurture the growth
and development of industrial unionism in the U.S. On the
occasion of his retirement, another of the pioneers of Local 659
involved in the struggles from the early days of the union,
stressed the importance of the younger generation of workers
studying the rich history of struggle of the Flint pioneers. He
wrote:
Our younger workers who are just entering industrial employ-
ment and union membership must be encouraged to study labor
history, and they must learn how to avoid the tragic errors
of my generation and they must enlarge upon and profit from
our triumphs....
Just as those of my generation stood on the shoulders of
Big Bill Haywood, of the Haymarket Square Martyrs, of Eugene
V. Debs and John L. Lewis, so will those of the present
generation of workers stand on our shoulders and they provide
the impetus for tomorrow's progress, security and happiness.
(Oct. 21, 1971, p.4)
The early Searchlight, as "the Voice of the Chevrolet
Worker," provides those strong shoulders.
End of text
(write to ronda@ais.org for the footnotes if interested)