(The following interview with former Michigan State University Professor and Labor Economist Jack Stieber--who died at the age of 91 in March 2011—about historic labor issues was previously published in the February 5, 1997 issue of the Aquarian/Downtown alternative weekly newspaper.)
Aquarian/Downtown: What about the effect on labor and on the labor movement of the new workfare programs, forcing welfare recipients to work for their benefits, NAFTA, globalization? What do you think the effect of that will be in the 21st Century? Is that really insignificant historically?
Stieber: It's not that insignificant. And I think it will make it more difficult, as it is today, for unions to maintain the kind of power that they have had in certain industries. That's inevitable.
Of course, when you talk about workfare: One the one hand you may be supportive of unions and feel that it's very important that unions should grow and remain as a counter-balance to large industry. On the other hand, we also want people who are unemployed, on welfare, to be able to improve their lives as well.
There is an apparent conflict, for example, as you probably read, in New York City, right now. Some of the unions are starting to raise questions about the new welfare bill which requires that people go off welfare and get jobs.
Well, one way of getting them off welfare and on to jobs is to have them do some of the kind of work that, ordinarily, would be done by union members. And some of the unions have raised questions about this. On the one hand, they don't want people who have been unemployed or on welfare to take their jobs. On the other hand, they are sympathetic to the people to be able to get jobs and to get off welfare.
So it presents a conflict where they have to sort of walk a tightrope. On the one hand, protecting their membership. And, on the other hand, not seeming to stand in the way of people who are trying to improve their situation.
As far as NAFTA is concerned: on the one hand, it does mean that you might lose jobs--and you do lose jobs to a place like Mexico. On the other hand, if you are interested in workers generally, you should also be interested not only in workers in the United States. There are workers in Mexico too. And they're much worse off than workers here.
Yet the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. opposed NAFTA, strictly on the grounds: "Well, this may hurt our members. Because some industries are going to leave and do the work in Mexico." But Mexico isn't the only place. They can do the work in Thailand. They can do it in Burma. You know, any one of these countries. Indonesia and so on. But the flip side of that is that, to the extent that some of the jobs that are in the United States go to these other countries, people in these other countries improve their situation. And, as a result, our ability to export to them is also improved. So that it's not all one-sided.
Aquarian/Downtown: What about the impact on wages? Some people argue that part of the reason that real wages are actually declining--you know, the downsizing of the high-wage jobs being replaced by people working in supermarkets--is related to this globalization?
Stieber: Well, I think it is. I think that the jobs that are being created today--many of them--are much lower-paying jobs than the ones that have been lost as a result of the downsizing. And also, as a result of being able to have work done outside the United States at wages much lower than we pay in the United States.
They are developing countries who are in a situation where we might have been a hundred years ago. And they have to get their start in the same way as we did ours. So that the best position is to not only do work that comes from countries like the United States and Western Europe, but also to have sufficient resources and be able, actually, to buy from these countries.
So that it does hurt the labor movement. And because labor movements are national movements--they're not international, even though you have organizations which are international like the International Metalworkers and other unions that meet maybe once, or two or three times a year--bargaining does not go on, on an international basis. It goes on within your own industry and within your own company and within your own country. So that it's inevitable that unions will have to take a position: "We have to protect our members." And one of the positions which labor took is "We think that NAFTA is going to hurt American workers."
I think, in the short-run, this is probably true. But in the longer run, I think it will rebound to the benefit of American workers. And, at the same time, also help workers in Mexico. Of course, Canada is a part of NAFTA, also. And while Canadian wages are somewhat lower than the United States, labor is much stronger in Canada than it is in the United States.
Aquarian/Downtown: When you say "the long-run." I mean, you got a situation now. Like in New York, the official unemployment rate--I just called up the Bureau of Labor Statistics--is 9.1 percent [in 1997]. Much higher than the national average. The African-American unemployment rate is 10.5 percent [in 1997]. When you say "long-run improvement," what happens in the short-run? Is "long-run" five years, 10 years?
Stieber: It's probably much longer than that. And the unemployment rate--I would be surprised if it was as high as nine percent [in 1997].
In Massachusetts you probably have an unemployment rate of about 4 percent [in 1997]. In Michigan it's about 4 percent [in 1997]. Unemployment has never been the same all over the country. It's always varied. In California, it sometimes has been among the lowest. Now it's among the highest.
In Michigan, for example, we often have been among the higher unemployment levels, when the automobile industry is down.
Aquarian/Downtown: The argument that has been made by those who say the Labor Department is spinning the figures for the media in a politically partisan way is that there are regional variations. And in the places like New York which had high wages, it's much higher. The Northeast has not benefited from whatever recovery of the '90s, and in California, for instance, it's a high rate for Hispanics. It's an uneven kind of thing.
Stieber: It's always been uneven. But I think it's not surprising that it would be uneven because you have different industries in different parts of the country. Some industries are doing well. Others are not doing well. I don't know enough about California, particularly. But I suppose this is one of the reasons why in California you find that they are passing laws which are most undesirable, in terms of effects upon immigrants, "illegal" or legal for that matter. Because whenever you have a problem, you look for somebody to blame. And they say "Well, the people who are responsible for our unemployment rate are these `illegals' that are coming in from Mexico. And taking jobs or wages that American workers are not prepared to accept."
Aquarian/Downtown: In a sense, the scapegoating appears to be a kind of anxiety. One way it was expressed was in the Buchanan vote [in 1996 presidential election]. In terms of the short-term economic suffering that the victims of downsizing are experiencing, how long a period of time will this suffering last? And can the labor movement respond?
Stieber: The labor movement responds by doing the best job they can to protect the workers and trying to organize the workers. But, you know, it's not inevitable that the United States should be the highest wage country in the world. It's not so long ago that workers in the United States were making the most money of any other country. And the second one was Great Britain.
The United States is no longer at the top of the heap. We're maybe number four or five. [in 1997]. How has this taken place? It's taken place because over a period of 40, 50 years these other countries have developed. In a sense, some of them havae actually benefited from the fact that they lost the war. In other words, Germany lost the war so their industry was destroyed. And we helped them rebuilt it. is anybody prepared to say now that that was a mistake? I don't think so.
But I think these countries have become major competitors to the United States. In some countries the reason they are doing well is their labaor movement is more effective than in the United States. In Germany that's true. And in Sweden that is true. Less true in Japan because the labor movement there is organized in a different fashion. The United States was once the highest-paying country. It's now maybe fourth or fifth. But American workers earn more than most other workers.
So globalization does have the effect of reducing the clout of unions in the welathiest countries. On the other hand, it does have the effect of improving the situation in those countries where workers have always been among the poorest.
Now, hwo long it will take? I don't know. Certainly not in our lifetime. But I think the job of unions is to do their best to protect their workers, and yet, to recognize that we're part of one world. American workers may be harmed by improving the lot of Mexican workers or Indonesians or whatever. But one shouldn't turn a blind eye to it. And I think the American labor movement recognizes that.
On the other hand, I don't see that we're going to come back to a point where unions will represent 20, 25, 30 percent of the labor force. (end of article)
Showing posts with label Jack Stieber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Stieber. Show all posts
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Remembering Labor Economist Jack Stieber (1919-2011)--Part 2
(The following interview with former Michigan State University Professor and Labor Economist Jack Stieber--who died at the age of 91 in March 2011—about historic labor issues was previously published in the February 5, 1997 issue of the Aquarian/Downtown alternative weekly newspaper.)
Aquarian/Downtown: So you’re talking about a situation [in the late 1940s] when labor’s influence in the United States seemed to be at its peak?
Stieber: Well, it was certainly very high. Because during the war prices and wages had been controlled, so that when the war was over, unions said `we have lost a lot during this period, due to inflation, and we’ve got to make it up.’ And strikes were being threatened and actually carried out all over the country.
Take Walter Reuther for example, and the UAW, who had just become president of the UAW, having defeated the communist forces. There was a lot of internal fighting within the union which had been very close to the Communist Party. But Reuther and his faction eventually became the foremost activists in the union and the issues that were then being posed—for example, pensions. At that time there were no negotiated pensions among unions and companies. And, in fact, when the steelworkers made one of their major issues in 1949 to negotiate pensions, the government set up a three-member impartial panel to hear the case in New York City. And it was even argued that pensions were not negotiable. In other words, that pensions were exclusive to employers. But the board held that they were negotiable.
Eventually, through strikes and other labor actions they become fairly universal. Pensions began to become part of collective bargaining. And by 1950 the automobile workers, the steelworkers, electrical workers, etc.—a lot of the unions—had succeeded in negotiating on pensions.
I worked in the Steelworkers for two years, but then the Korean War started in 1950 while Truman was president. And he called on unions to forego the strike weapon during the war and cooperate with government. Which they had done during World War II. But one of the things that Philip Murray had learned during that period was that while in World War II the government gave some very top-level positions to union people—like Sidney Hillman, for example, or the textile workers union, Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and so on, UAW, and others.
But Murray had learned that the people who really do the work and deal with day-to-day problems are at sort of a middle level. So that his position at that time was that `we want a bunch of our young people to go to work for the government’ on matters that had relationships to unions at middle-level type positions. And he identified me as one of the people to go down to Washington and to do that. So after working a a few agencies, I then became the executive assistant to the C.I.O. members of the Wage Stabilization Board. There was still a bifurcated labor movement. The A.F. of L. was one federation, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations was another. And there was a tripartite Wage Stabilization Board established.
I think it had six industry members, six labor members and six public members. The labor members were generally presidents of unions and I sort of worked for them—Emile Reavy, president of the Textile Workers, Joe Chiles, president of the Rubber Workers, Joe Byrne, president of the Communications Workers were three of my principals. But as union presidents they were not in a position to sit around in an office and do things. So I had a small staff and would work directly with the other staff members in the agency.
Aquarian/Downtown: It sounds like at that time the government seemed to be more inclusive in terms of labor. And labor had influence. What has happened between now and then?
Stieber: It wouldn’t be any different, even now. whenever there is a national emergency—and a war is the utmost national emergency there can be—the government has to try to co-opt the unions to cooperate. And union members and officers are really reflective of the United States, generally. They’re patriotic. So when there’s a war they say `We’re not going to interfere with war production. On the other hand, we’re not going to allow our members to suffer while others are making money out of the war. And therefore we want to be a part of whatever is being done.’
So unions were important. By the mid-1950s, unions represented about 33 percent of the labor industry, which did not include any public unions.
Since then, unions have declined from about 33 percent to about 15 percent [in 1997]. And whereas in the 1950s it was all private sector, a significant part of the labor movement today is public sector. In fact some of the largest unions, like AFSCME—American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees, teachers’ unions, the government unions, constitute a very significant part.
Aquarian/Downtown: You mentioned that decline in numbers. In your viewpoint, having studied the whole situation for years, what has caused that decline?
Stieber: Well, I think a lot of things. One of them is the structure of industry has changed. Whereas the unions were most effective in organizing large-scale industries like steel and textile and electronics and automobiles, the structure of industry has changed so that these industries have become less important. For example, the automobile probably employed over a million workers. But as a result of increases in technology and automation and so on, they were able to reduce their labor force. And as a result, reducing membership in unions to what is now on the order of, probably, 400,000 to 500,000 among the Big Three: Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. General Motors would be still the largest.
Another is that employers have always preferred to work without unions. Some of the companies that were eventually organized as a result of very bitter strikes, where people were killed and things like that, once the unions were recognized in companies like Ford and General Motors, they were able to work together. They would be able to negotiate contracts. Occasionally there would be strikes. But these major companies were generally accepting of the fact that they had to work with the unions. Because the unions had organized their workers. But, if there is an opportunity, employers would still prefer to work without unions.
And the National Labor Relations Act—which was a great boost for labor organization in the 1930s and after the war—allows employers to resist unions quite effectively. And they can string you out a long period of time before you can have an election. And if you’re in an organizing campaign, you can’t get an election at the height of your membership’s support. They can put it off for months or even a year or so. Union support will decline. And, eventually, the elections will not be successful.
The structure of American industry, where these major mass production industries became less important, also had the effect of reducing the clout of labor unions. That, along with the continuing opposition of employers in the United States, had a lot to do with it. And also the international competition which you now have since the ‘80s or thereabouts. If companies became internationalized, and you can get products made more cheaply in Asian countries or in Mexico or in some other place, that effectively makes it more difficult for unions to organize and also to get the kind of contracts that they would be negotiating with managements.
So, as a result, gradually from 33 percent, unions have gone down to about 15.8 percent. Of which only about 11 percent are private sector [in 1997].
But I think one of the things that one shouldn’t lose sight of is, despite the fact that unions only represent about half the proportion of the workforce, they still account for about 18 million members [in 1997]. You don’t have any other sector of the economy where you have that many individuals who are a part of a movement.
I think one might fault the labor movement since the late 1970s for not pursuing organization efforts strongly enough. Once a union becomes entrenched it’s a lot easier for a staff member to do his day-to-day job and service the local union, handle grievances, represent them in arbitration and do things like that, than to go out and do the organizing of new workers. And the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. under Meany and, subsequently, when Lane Kirkland was president, did not really put a very high priority on organization.
Now whether or not things are likely to change with a new administration? They seem to be putting greater efforts into organization. And one of the things that they also are doing especially during this election period, is spending a lot of money on political action. Something like $30 million [in 1996] devoted to supporting candidates and advertising and so on.
Do we expect that this will make a big change in organization? The odds are that it won’t. Instead of 15.8 percent, you might creep up to another percentage point or two. But I think the labor movement is not likely to grow very much more than it is today. But it still is an effective force in many industries. (end of part 2)
Aquarian/Downtown: So you’re talking about a situation [in the late 1940s] when labor’s influence in the United States seemed to be at its peak?
Stieber: Well, it was certainly very high. Because during the war prices and wages had been controlled, so that when the war was over, unions said `we have lost a lot during this period, due to inflation, and we’ve got to make it up.’ And strikes were being threatened and actually carried out all over the country.
Take Walter Reuther for example, and the UAW, who had just become president of the UAW, having defeated the communist forces. There was a lot of internal fighting within the union which had been very close to the Communist Party. But Reuther and his faction eventually became the foremost activists in the union and the issues that were then being posed—for example, pensions. At that time there were no negotiated pensions among unions and companies. And, in fact, when the steelworkers made one of their major issues in 1949 to negotiate pensions, the government set up a three-member impartial panel to hear the case in New York City. And it was even argued that pensions were not negotiable. In other words, that pensions were exclusive to employers. But the board held that they were negotiable.
Eventually, through strikes and other labor actions they become fairly universal. Pensions began to become part of collective bargaining. And by 1950 the automobile workers, the steelworkers, electrical workers, etc.—a lot of the unions—had succeeded in negotiating on pensions.
I worked in the Steelworkers for two years, but then the Korean War started in 1950 while Truman was president. And he called on unions to forego the strike weapon during the war and cooperate with government. Which they had done during World War II. But one of the things that Philip Murray had learned during that period was that while in World War II the government gave some very top-level positions to union people—like Sidney Hillman, for example, or the textile workers union, Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and so on, UAW, and others.
But Murray had learned that the people who really do the work and deal with day-to-day problems are at sort of a middle level. So that his position at that time was that `we want a bunch of our young people to go to work for the government’ on matters that had relationships to unions at middle-level type positions. And he identified me as one of the people to go down to Washington and to do that. So after working a a few agencies, I then became the executive assistant to the C.I.O. members of the Wage Stabilization Board. There was still a bifurcated labor movement. The A.F. of L. was one federation, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations was another. And there was a tripartite Wage Stabilization Board established.
I think it had six industry members, six labor members and six public members. The labor members were generally presidents of unions and I sort of worked for them—Emile Reavy, president of the Textile Workers, Joe Chiles, president of the Rubber Workers, Joe Byrne, president of the Communications Workers were three of my principals. But as union presidents they were not in a position to sit around in an office and do things. So I had a small staff and would work directly with the other staff members in the agency.
Aquarian/Downtown: It sounds like at that time the government seemed to be more inclusive in terms of labor. And labor had influence. What has happened between now and then?
Stieber: It wouldn’t be any different, even now. whenever there is a national emergency—and a war is the utmost national emergency there can be—the government has to try to co-opt the unions to cooperate. And union members and officers are really reflective of the United States, generally. They’re patriotic. So when there’s a war they say `We’re not going to interfere with war production. On the other hand, we’re not going to allow our members to suffer while others are making money out of the war. And therefore we want to be a part of whatever is being done.’
So unions were important. By the mid-1950s, unions represented about 33 percent of the labor industry, which did not include any public unions.
Since then, unions have declined from about 33 percent to about 15 percent [in 1997]. And whereas in the 1950s it was all private sector, a significant part of the labor movement today is public sector. In fact some of the largest unions, like AFSCME—American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees, teachers’ unions, the government unions, constitute a very significant part.
Aquarian/Downtown: You mentioned that decline in numbers. In your viewpoint, having studied the whole situation for years, what has caused that decline?
Stieber: Well, I think a lot of things. One of them is the structure of industry has changed. Whereas the unions were most effective in organizing large-scale industries like steel and textile and electronics and automobiles, the structure of industry has changed so that these industries have become less important. For example, the automobile probably employed over a million workers. But as a result of increases in technology and automation and so on, they were able to reduce their labor force. And as a result, reducing membership in unions to what is now on the order of, probably, 400,000 to 500,000 among the Big Three: Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. General Motors would be still the largest.
Another is that employers have always preferred to work without unions. Some of the companies that were eventually organized as a result of very bitter strikes, where people were killed and things like that, once the unions were recognized in companies like Ford and General Motors, they were able to work together. They would be able to negotiate contracts. Occasionally there would be strikes. But these major companies were generally accepting of the fact that they had to work with the unions. Because the unions had organized their workers. But, if there is an opportunity, employers would still prefer to work without unions.
And the National Labor Relations Act—which was a great boost for labor organization in the 1930s and after the war—allows employers to resist unions quite effectively. And they can string you out a long period of time before you can have an election. And if you’re in an organizing campaign, you can’t get an election at the height of your membership’s support. They can put it off for months or even a year or so. Union support will decline. And, eventually, the elections will not be successful.
The structure of American industry, where these major mass production industries became less important, also had the effect of reducing the clout of labor unions. That, along with the continuing opposition of employers in the United States, had a lot to do with it. And also the international competition which you now have since the ‘80s or thereabouts. If companies became internationalized, and you can get products made more cheaply in Asian countries or in Mexico or in some other place, that effectively makes it more difficult for unions to organize and also to get the kind of contracts that they would be negotiating with managements.
So, as a result, gradually from 33 percent, unions have gone down to about 15.8 percent. Of which only about 11 percent are private sector [in 1997].
But I think one of the things that one shouldn’t lose sight of is, despite the fact that unions only represent about half the proportion of the workforce, they still account for about 18 million members [in 1997]. You don’t have any other sector of the economy where you have that many individuals who are a part of a movement.
I think one might fault the labor movement since the late 1970s for not pursuing organization efforts strongly enough. Once a union becomes entrenched it’s a lot easier for a staff member to do his day-to-day job and service the local union, handle grievances, represent them in arbitration and do things like that, than to go out and do the organizing of new workers. And the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. under Meany and, subsequently, when Lane Kirkland was president, did not really put a very high priority on organization.
Now whether or not things are likely to change with a new administration? They seem to be putting greater efforts into organization. And one of the things that they also are doing especially during this election period, is spending a lot of money on political action. Something like $30 million [in 1996] devoted to supporting candidates and advertising and so on.
Do we expect that this will make a big change in organization? The odds are that it won’t. Instead of 15.8 percent, you might creep up to another percentage point or two. But I think the labor movement is not likely to grow very much more than it is today. But it still is an effective force in many industries. (end of part 2)
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Remembering Labor Economist Jack Stieber (1919-2011)--Part 1
(The following interview with former Michigan State University Professor and Labor Economist Jack Stieber--who died at the age of 91 in March 2011—about historic labor issues was previously published in the February 5, 1997 issue of the Aquarian/Downtown alternative weekly newspaper.)
Aquarian/Downtown: How did you come to get involved in the study of U.S. labor issues?
Stieber: When I went to college as an undergraduate at CCNY in New York City—it was the Depression in the 1930s and 25 percent or so unemployment—the only way in which young people could see to improve life was to work through labor unions. To help them in any way that we could in organizing. And the New Deal came in about that time when Roosevelt was elected. And he, by getting the National Labor Relations Act passed, encouraged the organization of unions.
Most young people at that time were greatly interested in labor and it was a big issue. If you read the newspapers going back to those days my guess is that you’d almost every day read about organization. Steelworkers being organized. Automobile workers being organized. The internal battle between the A.F. of L. and the newly-organized C.I.O. under John L. Lewis. These were the kind of things that were very interesting. And young people were well aware of them and you were reading about them all the time. We didn’t have television or anything like that, where you would see these things. But those were major issues.
I majored in economics as an undergraduate, with an interest in unions, and took whatever courses there were. And after I graduated in 1940, I started to work in Washington, in what was then called the War Manpower Commission, because the war had already started in Europe. And my job was to make surveys of areas in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. And to estimate what would be the supply of labor needed in various kinds of industries and the available labor force. So that I sort of became a person who was identified as being specialized as an expert in that area.
In 1941 I was drafted and was in the Service for three-and-a-half years. And when I came out, I went to work in the Veterans Emergency Housing Program. It was then headed by Wilson Wyatt, the former mayor of Louisville. And he was already recognized as being presidential timber. The kind of guy that was always in the news and doing things. And I worked in the labor branch of that agency. And the job of the labor branch was to go out in the field when there were disputes between unions and companies and try to resolve them. I was sort of a research assistant in the office.
But there was a lot of competition to get supplies after the war. Our job in the housing agency was to get those supplies to be put into relatively low-cost housing. So that veterans would be able to buy a house for $10,000.
Aquarian/Downtown: Some kind of economic conversion?
Stieber: That’s right. Conversion at that time. But there was a big dispute between Wilson Wyatt and the administration. That instead of the raw materials for housing going into construction, it was going into race tracks and things like that. Where entrepreneurs were seeing a way to make a buck.
Aquarian/Downtown: Has the situation changed much in the ‘90s, in your view?
Stieber: Well, obviously, it still goes on. And politics is important in making these determinations. But the unions, by the end of the War in 1945, had grown very substantially. Because the War Labor Board was between unions and managements, so that there wouldn’t be strikes which would interfere with the war effort. And by that time, of course, there were two federations. John L. Lewis took the major industrial unions—like the steelworkers, the automobile workers, the textile workers, the chemical workers, the electrical workers, etc.—out of the A.F. of L.. It was then the American Federation of Labor on the one hand, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations on the other, which had the federation for the major unions organized in that field.
When the agency folded, I was looking for something to do. And at that time a number of universities established programs in labor and industrial relations. Cornell was the first program that was set up. Other programs were set up almost immediately thereafter. The University of Illinois started a program in industrial relations. The University of Minnesota started a program. And I applied to several of those and became a graduate student at the University of Minnesota.
A friend of mine was Otis Rubaker, who became the research director of the Steelworkers Union. And after I had been in Minnesota, he called me and said `How would you like to work for the Steelworkers Union?’
Well, I sort of felt that I had enough of academic life at that point and went down to Pittsburgh. And, after sitting around for a few hours, was ushered into the office of Philip Murray, who with his old Scottish accent, said `Young mon, I understand from Otis that you are a dedicated young mon who is interested in the union. And if you would like to work for us, why, we’d be glad to have you.’
So I then left Minnesota and moved down to Pittsburgh. And went to work for the Steelworkers Union. This was December, 1948. (end of part 1)
Aquarian/Downtown: How did you come to get involved in the study of U.S. labor issues?
Stieber: When I went to college as an undergraduate at CCNY in New York City—it was the Depression in the 1930s and 25 percent or so unemployment—the only way in which young people could see to improve life was to work through labor unions. To help them in any way that we could in organizing. And the New Deal came in about that time when Roosevelt was elected. And he, by getting the National Labor Relations Act passed, encouraged the organization of unions.
Most young people at that time were greatly interested in labor and it was a big issue. If you read the newspapers going back to those days my guess is that you’d almost every day read about organization. Steelworkers being organized. Automobile workers being organized. The internal battle between the A.F. of L. and the newly-organized C.I.O. under John L. Lewis. These were the kind of things that were very interesting. And young people were well aware of them and you were reading about them all the time. We didn’t have television or anything like that, where you would see these things. But those were major issues.
I majored in economics as an undergraduate, with an interest in unions, and took whatever courses there were. And after I graduated in 1940, I started to work in Washington, in what was then called the War Manpower Commission, because the war had already started in Europe. And my job was to make surveys of areas in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. And to estimate what would be the supply of labor needed in various kinds of industries and the available labor force. So that I sort of became a person who was identified as being specialized as an expert in that area.
In 1941 I was drafted and was in the Service for three-and-a-half years. And when I came out, I went to work in the Veterans Emergency Housing Program. It was then headed by Wilson Wyatt, the former mayor of Louisville. And he was already recognized as being presidential timber. The kind of guy that was always in the news and doing things. And I worked in the labor branch of that agency. And the job of the labor branch was to go out in the field when there were disputes between unions and companies and try to resolve them. I was sort of a research assistant in the office.
But there was a lot of competition to get supplies after the war. Our job in the housing agency was to get those supplies to be put into relatively low-cost housing. So that veterans would be able to buy a house for $10,000.
Aquarian/Downtown: Some kind of economic conversion?
Stieber: That’s right. Conversion at that time. But there was a big dispute between Wilson Wyatt and the administration. That instead of the raw materials for housing going into construction, it was going into race tracks and things like that. Where entrepreneurs were seeing a way to make a buck.
Aquarian/Downtown: Has the situation changed much in the ‘90s, in your view?
Stieber: Well, obviously, it still goes on. And politics is important in making these determinations. But the unions, by the end of the War in 1945, had grown very substantially. Because the War Labor Board was between unions and managements, so that there wouldn’t be strikes which would interfere with the war effort. And by that time, of course, there were two federations. John L. Lewis took the major industrial unions—like the steelworkers, the automobile workers, the textile workers, the chemical workers, the electrical workers, etc.—out of the A.F. of L.. It was then the American Federation of Labor on the one hand, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations on the other, which had the federation for the major unions organized in that field.
When the agency folded, I was looking for something to do. And at that time a number of universities established programs in labor and industrial relations. Cornell was the first program that was set up. Other programs were set up almost immediately thereafter. The University of Illinois started a program in industrial relations. The University of Minnesota started a program. And I applied to several of those and became a graduate student at the University of Minnesota.
A friend of mine was Otis Rubaker, who became the research director of the Steelworkers Union. And after I had been in Minnesota, he called me and said `How would you like to work for the Steelworkers Union?’
Well, I sort of felt that I had enough of academic life at that point and went down to Pittsburgh. And, after sitting around for a few hours, was ushered into the office of Philip Murray, who with his old Scottish accent, said `Young mon, I understand from Otis that you are a dedicated young mon who is interested in the union. And if you would like to work for us, why, we’d be glad to have you.’
So I then left Minnesota and moved down to Pittsburgh. And went to work for the Steelworkers Union. This was December, 1948. (end of part 1)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
