Labor in Government

Report Outline
Labour Demands for Represenation in Government
Labor's Minor Role in 1917–18 War Organization
Trade Union Representation in Present Administration

Labour Demands for Represenation in Government

Since commencement of the national defense program in 1940, labor leaders have made repeated demands for full and effective representation of the trade union movement in administrative agencies of the federal government, and particularly in those agencies concerned with problems of production. These demands were put forward with increased emphasis and frequency after the United States entered the war in December, 1941, and are being pressed with renewed vigor at the present time. While phrased in various terms, the content and context of the majority of these demands indicate that (1) organized labor desires the appointment to policy-making and operating positions of men who will act as direct representatives of the labor movement, (2) labor is dissatisfied with the present degree of trade-union participation in government, with labor spokesmen limited largely to membership on advisory committees, and (3) labor would not be satisfied if men with trade union backgrounds were appointed to high public office to function primarily as public servants, rather than as direct spokesmen for the trade union movement.

Demands for Representation by C. I. O. and A. F. L.

Speaking at New York on April 11, 1943, Philip Murray, president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, said the C. I. O. had “repeatedly urged full and equal representation of labor in all government agencies dealing with war problems,” but that such representation had not been achieved. In his opening address to the 1942 C. I. O. convention, Murray had referred specifically to the War Production Board in urging that “labor be accorded the opportunity to participate with management in the preparation of programs designed to increase the efficiency” both of the individual workers and of the nation's industrial plant. He emphasized that labor “doesn't want people appointed to measly jobs with salaries attached to them, where they are merely members of common ordinary, so-called advisory boards.” The C. I. O. wanted labor men “placed in positions of trust and responsibility.” A later session of the convention unanimously adopted a resolution on total war mobilization which reflected Murray's sentiments. The resolution received vigorous support in a floor speech by Sidney Hillman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and onetime associate director of the Office of Production Management.

The 1942 convention of the American Federation of Labor unanimously adopted a resolution on war planning which stated that the federal government “should have represented on all agencies set up to control, plan or direct the national economy, representatives of the trade unions” and these representatives should be “commensurate with and proportionate to the amount of representation given to management.” The committee report on the resolution emphasized the need for “direct labor representation.” A statement issued on January 28, 1943, by the executive council of the A. F. L, attacked the limited degree of participation permitted to labor in the War Production Board. While admitting that labor had been recognized to the extent of having some of its men named “as observers” on subordinate committees, the statement called for “representatives of the organized workers” at the top levels of “operation and policy-making.”