free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Maxwell A · Joined: 10 May 2010 Posts: 19

Please read Ch. 9 and post thoughtfully on the forum.
Here is a question to get you started:
When the AFL and CIO merged in 1955, their statement of common purpose declared the labor movement's support for the Cold War: "We are happy that in our way, we have been able to bring about the unity of the labor movement at a time when the unity of all American people is most urgently needed in the face of the Communist threat to world peace and civilization." Why did the unions follow the governments lead in terms of foreign policy?

Maxwell A · Joined: 10 May 2010 Posts: 19

The big unions, the AFL and CIO, joined American anticommunist foreign polcy in the late 1940s and 1950s. It seems like they were motivated by the witch hunts by people like McCarthy. They did not want to seem unAmerican by the public which was really scared of communism at that time. Even some union members were probably scared by the possibility of a Russian nuclear attack. The Korean war furthered this anti comunism hysteria. the stalemate int he korean war opened the wound of comunism, and made america seem much more vonerablie to this international threat.

The unions also used the red scare to eliminate competition from the left wing of the labor movement. This gave the union leaders more power than they would otherwise have had. They used the anticommunist feeling to consolidate their power.

My question is: how did this anticommunism influence the social agendas of the labor movement in the 1950s and beyond?

asilver · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 28

Its pretty silly that the AFL and the CIO had such a hard time trusting one another, even though they were working togethor, they continued to raid echother. That Is just plain sillyness. but eventualy they got their shit together which was pretty cool. The book says that together they made up 24 percent of the labor force. But then for this to happen the CIO had to cancell some of its cooler policys like trieng to end racial discrimination. So I dont know what to think.
Do you believe the collaboration was good for workers?

aegilman · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 17

Why did the unions follow the governments lead in terms of foreign policy?

I would certainly agree with Adam's point that the McCarthyism/Anti-Communist hysteria after WW2-the 50's caused divides in labor especially the CIO which had was much more influenced by Moscow and the "Vanguard" than the more conservative AFL...until merged together in 55. What was so ironic about the governments foreign/domestic policies after WW2 was that on the one hand they had just sent millions of Americans to fight against the Fascist Nazis and now they were "fighting" (you wouldn't know by looking at the Defense budget that they weren't actually in war) the Soviet Communists in the name of Democracy, yet on the home front they were taking away the same civil liberties (the House Un-American Activities Committee, Subversive Activities Control Board, exploiting the Smith Act, Taft-Hartley etc...) that they were supposedly fighting against under the pretext of protecting the U.S. from Communist infiltration. Sorry for that little tangent, but I anyways I also believe that "Big Labor" had to support the U.S. foreign policy b/c for one big business and government had won the public relations battle through propaganda and therefore had the dominant ideas of Americans on their side...which included buying into this red scare. So it would be a very poor political move for labor unions to stand up for the truth and not buy into the Bull Shit coming from Washington and big business since popular beliefs were not in favor of that. Finally, this anticommunist campaign was great for business and to some extent labor. Because it gave an excuse for the U.S. to intervene anywhere under the pretext of fighting for Democracy while they were really just ensuring that U.S. corporate interests are safe abroad while also creating more markets for them to exploit. For example, the book mentions briefly United Fruit in Honduras.

My question is based around this startling statistic that is on pg.229: "Through 1943, industrial accidents claimed more lives (37,000) than combat." Why was worker safety conditions, at least in what we have read, basically an issue that unions overlook and do not bring into collective bargaining agreements?

gchai · Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Posts: 16 Location: In your closet

[quote]Why did the unions follow the governments lead in terms of foreign policy?[/quote
I think its because to further the "jump on the bandwagon" thing. Basically, the entirety of America is saying communism is bad. So if people see this union being a frontline, representing the "communism is bad" thing then they might get more membership. Also if corporations resist, they could easily say YOU'RE GOING AGAINST US?! THAT MEANS YOU ARE A COMMIE!!

rzayas · Joined: 07 May 2010 Posts: 14

Back in the 1940's unions didnt have as the ability to protect the rights of the workers because protecting workers means having the money to secure their safety. So unions didn't want to waste the money doing that and because so many people needed jobs most people overlooked the safety conditions and really just focused on the money they were making. Also just as Gabe was explaining it was seen as unamerican or a communist standpoint to ask for more workers rights; I know that idea sounds ridiculous now but back then it was seen that if certain people had more rights than there would be less equality between people, hence a communist society. And that was seen as bad, so no union wanted to be branded as a communist.

One thing I found interest was this quote; "Gender, racial and ethnic barriers to employment and advancement dismantlement." (p. 225) I'm sorry but that seems like a load of bull shit, like seriously in the forties I'm sure these issues were beginning to get settled in the work place but under no circumstances would I have said these barriers dismantled. The text did say over 350,000 women joined the military and also a large amount of black, Mexican American, Japanese and Puerto Ricans joined the military as well. But still besides in the military what else was there that erased the barriers between race, ethnicity and gender? Can someone find me proof from the text proving or disproving that the lines between these people were actually dismantled?

canderson · Joined: 07 Apr 2010 Posts: 23

In the reading, Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" were mentioned (as part of the Declaration of Policy that delegates were asked to sign off on), and they caught my eye. "Freedom of speech and religion, freedom from fear and want". While the first two seem to be at least part of what America is striving for, the last two seem to be contradictory to everything we've been reading about lately (especially "freedom from want"). Fear was used extensively during the Cold War, as we discussed in class today. The government wasn't disguising their fear tactics either -- they were very blunt with the propaganda. The last, "freedom from want", may be a basic human goal, but it is also a near-unattainable goal, and one the U.S., it seems, has never been very committed to achieving. Our economy, our lifestyles, our American Dream; all these depend on want as an all-consuming, individual-driving force.

When Roosevelt defined these "Four Freedoms", what were the values he was advocating? Were they, in the context of what we've seen, truly American values?

jcho · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 22

I think that the the purpose of merging and supporting the Cold War was partially an act of fear. With the red scare everyone could have been a threat. Like we discussed in class many of the strikes from the union were seen as unAmerican and branded as being related to the ideals of communism. They used these "tactics" either purposefully or ignorantly to break up many of the strikes and destroy unions. I agree with the statement that probably most of the union members also feared this invasion of communism. So I believe that this in turn led them to support the Cold War to be in the safe zone. The gain of certain powers such as the unions using the red scare for their own good was another reason for this occurrence.

My question is also how this fear of communism affected the labor movement after the 1950's

Free Forum