 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
| 141 COMMOiriST CONTROL IN LkBOR 3, Cemnunist Strength in the C.I.O. General; In Chapter IV the subject of Communist influence in the C.I.O,. was discussed. This present section is an effort to document the statements made in the text. On the whole, tiie concern here is with the political lean- ings of the top officers of the various unions: the officials who are on the executive board of tiie C.I.O. Less certainty can be had of leanings in con- ventions, since -fehese officers are not always able to control their delegates. In this regard it is noteworthy that the N.Y. Times, Nov. 3,1945, reports that the convention will be dispensed with next year, and that an enlarged execu- tive board meeting will replace it. This gives added significance to the sub- sequent analysis. That same news item, and a longer report in the Daily Worker of itov, 3, 1945, confirms the earlier observations on the political use of labor by the Communists. Thus, resolutions on sharing the knowledge of atomic energy; attacking peacetime conscription; attacking the "rider" which would deny UNPJRA funds to nations which exclude our newsmen from free observation of their use; and supporting the Curran .pos it ion on returning high-point troops from Europe are all political matters, and in each case the stand taken harmonizes completely with the Party Line. Several of these items taken singly are sup- ported by legitimate groups——thus, Church groups have opposed conscription—— but the significant point is the stress on such political issues by a labor organization, and tiie coincidence of tiie issues stressed with those currently agitated by the Communist press. In the analysis to follow, membership figures were adapted from F. Peter- son*s Handbook of Labor Unions (Wash; 1944) and adjusted*to estimated postwar strength; voting strength is official and obtained from a confidential source in the Labor Department (this can be used to correct membership figures); and political leanings were obtained from variou.S confidential sources and sub- mitted for checking t o three well-informed labor leaders and two government officials who work full-time on labor matters. A. Unions Definitely Right-wing. In this category are placed unions whose officers are known opponents of Communism, ani safely entrenched in of- ffice. In such unions, there are Communist locals. Steel has quite a few; the important New York and Los Angeles newspaper guilds are left; and the C .P. strength of locals 1,3, a nil 65-.pf the Retail and wholesale Workers is such as to bring doubt whether the/ WXJLT remain safely right-wing muc,h longer. American Newspaper Guild, 63 Park Row, N.Y.C. 7; membership 20,000; 4 vote*. .Publication: Guild Reporter; Pres: Milton Murray; V.P. Sam B. Eubanks; Seo- Treas: William W. Rodgers; general V .P.'s; George Harris; W.A. Copeland; Kenneth B. Grouse; George E. Eutchinson; Walter D. Engels. Textile Workers Union of America, 15 Union Square, N.Y.C. 3; 400,000; 12 votes. Publication: Textile Labor; Pres: Emil Rieve; V.P. George Baldanzi; Sec-'^reas: William Pollock. United Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Employees, 100 West 42nd St., N.Y.C. 18; membership 100,000; 8 votes. Pub}: The R.W.D.S. Employee; Pres: Samuel Wolchok; Sec-Treas: John V. Cooney; Ex. V.p; Martin C. Kyne; Leonard Levy; John J. Schulter; V.P.fs: I.M. Simon; Harry Tuvim; Samuel Lowentahl; George Donahue; Martin Koppel; Jerome Kaplan. |