BackThe UFW
Background
The UFW in the Brooklyn Navy YardBackground
A second CIO union, the United Federal Workers of America, too attempted to organize the navy yards in the pre-war years, and like the IUMSWA, they made little headway. The CIO established the UFW on 22 June 1937 as its union for all federal workers and selected its first president, Jacob Baker. A rival to the two existing federal workers' unions, it was formed out of a group of expelled locals of one of them, the AFL-affiliated AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees), which in turn had been organized out of several expelled locals of the older, and now independent, NFFE (National Federation of Federal Employees) after it withdrew from the AFL in 1931. In its short life the union never lived up to its creator's intentions, having at its peak signed up at most about 26,500 members out of the vast federal labor force. It merged with the CIO state and municipal workers' union in 1946 to become the United Public Workers of America and in 1950 was expelled from the CIO on charges of being communist dominated. It disbanded in early 1953, losing a few locals to the IUMSWA along the way. [Sterling D. Spero, Government as Employer; Murray B. Nesbitt, Labor Relations in the Federal Government Sector; “UPWA,” in Encyclopedia of Labor Unions; Max M. Kampelman, The Communist Party vs. the CIO: A Study in Power Politics; Harvey A. Levenstein, Communism, Anticommunism, and the CIO. The membership number is taken from "Daily Proceedings of the Fourth Constitutional Convention of the CIO, 1940." Further convention reports list only the number of delegates the UFW was entitled to, which from 1941 to 1944 was in the bracket for unions having 10,000 to 25,000 delegates. The union was still in the Brooklyn Navy Yard as of 1951, as there is a program ad for the United Public Workers of America, Naval Shipyard Branch of the Federal Workers' Union, Local 20, New York, NY, in "New York Naval Shipyard. Souvenir Journal, Sesqui-Centennial Anniversary, Brooklyn, 1951." As to the NFFE, it was established by the AFL in 1917 as the union for those federal workers not covered by other trade union jurisdictions. A dispute with the AFL over the reach of the NFFE's organizing resulted in the NFFE seceding from the AFL in 1930. The next year, the AFL then went on to form a second, non-trades federal workers union, the AFGE. Spero, Government as Employer.]The UFW dedicated itself to an ambitious program of achieving raises, classification changes, the elimination of unnecessary overtime, getting training for government workers--especially in order to qualify for promotions, and for the full recognition of the right to organize. Their initial legislative agenda for the then 800,000 federal employees asked for the establishment of a minimum wage of $1500 per year with automatic raises, the five-day week for all government workers, the creation of an independent Board of Appeals, the improvement of the merit system and its full extension to the field, optional retirement at thirty years of service, unemployment insurance, and an end of discrimination for race, sex, creed, or family relationship. By the end of 1937 the union counted 11,000 members in 70 locals across the country; a year later, it claimed 15,000 in 135 locals. What marked the UFW as distinctive from its white-collar competitors was its willingness to actively pursue grievances as fully as possible, whereas the NFFE and AFGE existed primarily as lobbying organizations exercising their power mostly in Congress. Further causing them to stand out was their militant stand against racial discrimination in the civil service, particularly in hiring and promotions. [The Federal Organizer; Official Organ of the United Federal Workers of America, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, September 1937; September 1937; December 1937; November 1937; October 1938. On the anti-racial discrimination position, see FO, 26 November 1938; December 1938; Margaret C. Rung, Servants of the State: Managing Diversity and Democracy in the Federal Workforce, 1933-1953.]
The UFW made the most of what it had. They called grievance handling “collective bargaining” and the union took much credit for the formalization of the appeals mechanism that was then under way in most government agencies. They took responsibility for the grievance procedure instituted in Henry Wallace's Agriculture Department, whose published appeals policy included grievance steps with representation up to the level of the Secretary and the free right of employees to join the union of their choice. They wanted labor relations in the departments to be a collective procedure, editorializing in their newspaper that no one individual should have the right to make use of the appeals process already in place. They aggressively argued that the government should apply the principles of the Wagner Act to its own workforce, and that “the national government of a democratic country has a peculiar responsibility to maintain model conditions of employment and model relationships, which are now far from good in the Federal sector.” [FO, 10 June 1938; June 1938; April 1939. Agriculture's labor policy is described in Federal Record, October 1938; November 1938; FR, 27 October 1939. The paper changed its name to the FR in September 1938.]
A godsend to UFW organizing was the press conference that President Roosevelt held on the morning of 9 July 1937. A reporter asked the president whether he favored federal employees “joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with Government.” In his fashion, Roosevelt began his answer with a story from back in the day when he was the ASN and oversaw the wage board process. Up to then the Department had determined the final wage schedules in secret, but upon assuming his new job in 1913 he decided to hold public national Wage Board hearings at which workers and their representatives could testify. People coming before him were allowed to testify and make recommendations about their working conditions as well as about wages. He said he got on well with the workers and made minor corrections in the wage schedules or otherwise help improve the working lives of navy yard employees if he thought it appropriate. However, when a union--to his recollection the Draftsmen's--wanted to make an “agreement” with the government he refused the overture, saying that “the Government does not make contracts with any Government employee. The administrative executive officers operate under a law. They have no discretion. The pay is fixed by the Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of government pay. They ought to have the privilege always of coming and laying their case before the administrative officer who is in charge of their department. That ruling, made, I think, in 1913 is just as good today as it was then.” [Press Conference #380, July 1937; Complete Presidential Press Conferences of Franklin D. Roosevelt, volumes 9-10, 1937.]
But then Roosevelt went on to say that while the law prohibited collective bargaining, every federal employee had the “privilege” of discussing work situations with his or her agency. The president thought this idea to be “original” on his part. When asked if he therefore thought that there were “certain things” that administrative officers and worker representatives could discuss, Roosevelt said “yes, let them all be heard.” Another reporter was curious as to whether the president thought unions would interfere with this right, to which he replied that workers could “join any union they want. There is no prohibition against that. They can join ten unions.” But Roosevelt insisted that there could be no formal bargaining in the public sector, especially since such matters as wages and hours were set by law. So, as the questioner put it, “you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents?” The president replied: “Not in the Government, because there is no collective contract . . . therefore the question does not arise.” And above all else as he wanted to make clear, government workers did not have the right to strike. ["Press Conference #380," July 1937, Complete Presidential Press Conferences; FO, October 1937. On FDR’s years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, see Frank Freidel, Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Apprenticeship; Gerald D. Nash, “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Labor: The World War I Origins of Early New Deal Policy” Labor History (Winter 1960).]
It was a point the President reiterated in a letter he sent to Luther Steward, president of the NFFE, in August 1937, and released to the public in September. “Militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Since their services involve the functioning of the government itself, a strike of public employees is attempt to prevent or obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such actions looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable." This letter served as one of the pillars of federal labor relations until the reforms of John Kennedy's administration. [Spero, Government as Employer; Nesbitt, Federal Labor Relations; Van Riper, History; Rung, Servants of the State; New York Times, September 1937; FO, October 1937.]
Despite the context within which Roosevelt placed his remarks about the rights of government employees to join unions, the UFW ran with them in the weeks after the press conference, sending letters to government agencies and regional offices, such as the BNY, asking them, in light of what the president had said, for a “simple statement of recognition of the rights of Federal employees to organize, and in recognition of the desirability of discussion by the administrative heads and worker representatives, we would like such a statement from you perhaps identifying it with the president's statement.” The union was beginning an organizing campaign and they wanted all federal agencies to know that “the basic purpose of the United Federal Workers is to improve the public service of the United States through improvement in the working conditions of the employees of the Government, through raising cultural and economic standards, and inculcating and fostering loyalty and esprit de corps for all Government workers. The whole program will be pursued by means of adjustments within departments and legislative activity affecting the service as a whole.” [Letter, Ann Wharton, Regional Organizer, UFWA, to Commandant of the Navy Yard, Brooklyn, NY, August 1937. The commandant referred her to the Navy Department. RG181; NA-NY.]
TopThe UFW in the Brooklyn Navy Yard
In early 1938 the UFW began organizing in the navy yards, at just about the time when the initial IUMSWA campaign in them had peaked. In February UFW organizers distributed flyers outside the Brooklyn Navy Yard's gates, and in late March its newspaper announced the chartering of local 94 at the Washington Navy Yard, and in September, local 118 in the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The UFW too cried out against AFL craft unionism in the yards, and its leaders promised that they would be the ones to instigate a meaningful grievance procedure. By November 1938 the union announced its first victory in the navy yards: the Philadelphia local had won a significant victory over the speedup, and thereby dangerous, practices of one supervisor who had threatened poor efficiency ratings to those working too slowly. [Memo for Captain of the Yard, from Lt. J.E. Gabrielson, February 1938; RG181; NA-NY; FO, March 1938; September 1938; FR, November 1938.]It was in the summer of 1938 that the split in BNY Local 21 of the IUMSWA occurred, leading to its quick downfall. The secessionists went over to the UFW and formed Local 137. In the winter of 1939 representatives from the Brooklyn and Philadelphia, including ex-Local 21 member William Long, met to discuss organizing in the government yards. Out of this meeting the UFW created a Permanent Joint Council of Navy Department locals. The new organization called for rigid enforcement of civil service regulations, higher pay, the acknowledging of seniority instead of efficiency lists, one grade of pay for a trade, time off with pay for those sent home due to inclement weather, reinstatement at the rate one held when laid off, a board of Appeals, and shop committees selected by union members. [Local 137 is first mentioned in the Federal Record in March 1939; FR, March 1939.]
These goals were not different from those of the trade unions' and like the IUMSWA UFW Local 137 picked what fights it could with the AFL unions in order to make itself stand out, which was a difficult task in the BNY where, as they admitted, of the 8000 people employed there in the spring of 1939, about 5000 belonged to BMTC unions. Like the Shipworkers before them they chose to focus on the issue of supervisors belonging to unions, a practice they too forbade. In one of its first communications with BNY management the local complained that AFL supervisors discriminated against CIO members and as proof enclosed a recent editorial written by the president of the machinists' federal-district lodge, N.P. Alifas, in which he threatened to “exterminate” the machinists' enemies. AFL hostility to the CIO was well known, and this antagonism was only compounded by permitting BNY supervisors to belong to craft unions. For that matter, allowing any supervisors to belong to unions meant that the Yard was sponsoring company unions. The Commandant replied that such matters were none of his business unless the local had specific charges of discrimination to make against BNY supervisors. [FR, April 1939; Letter, Long, Local 137, to Commandant, BNY; March 1939, enclosing letter from Navy Yards Joint Council, UFWA, CIO, to N. P. Alifas, Machinists; Letter, Woodward, to Long, March 1939; RG181; NA-NY. The issue at the BNY is also covered in FR, April 1939.]
In May 1939 a regional UFW officer, Ann Whartom, requested of the BNY Commandant a copy of the Navy Department's policy on supervisors maintaining union membership. Her letter was forwarded to Washington and she received a reply from the Secretary, who said that there was no written policy per se on the matter but that “it may be stated that the Department does not look with favor on its supervisors retaining membership in unions upon their advancement from the ranks as they then become part of management.” The union fumed as this merely repeated what the Navy Department had said a year before when the union had brought up the matter in general. [Letter, Wharton, UFWA, N.Y. Office, to the Commandant, BNY, May 1939; Letter, Acting SN, to Wharton, June 1939; RG181; NA-NY. This comment was published in the FR, July 1939. Also, see FR, June 1939.]
The UFW took its turn protesting the failings of navy yard labor policy. In September 1939 Local 137 president John Healey asked Master Shipfitter Connors that a group of 34 chippers/caulkers and riveters [shipfitter shop trades], 21 of whom had twenty or more years of seniority, and six with over ten, be re-rated to first class because each “perform[ed] an average run of work requiring the skill and experience expected from a first class mechanic.” A similar request was made for certain machinists in Punger's Ordnance shop. [FR, September 1939; Letter, Long, Corr. Secretary, UFWA Local 137, to Captain C.A. Dunn, September 1939, enclosing letters from shop steward Healy, to Connors, September 1939, to Punger, September 1939. All in RG181; NA-NY.]
Within a week Connors rejected the request. Therefore, following UFW procedure, Long appealed to the Manager, Captain Dunn, who in turn answered in the negative saying that the Yard would not change its policy of promoting by merit nor of determining the distribution of grades among each trade. Eleanor Norton, a vice-president for the UFW, then took Local 137's grievance to the Navy Department. She reminded the office that in a recent letter ASN Edison said the Department paid it civilian employees “for the work they actually perform[ed].” The local believed that at least 85 per cent of any trade should be paid the maximum rate, and as these men performed the average work of first-class chippers and riveters in their trades they should be re-rated to first-class. She repeated the argument in a second letter about the machinists, whose grievance had also been denied. When asked for his comments by the Department, Commandant Woodward defended his staff's actions, saying that the requests were similar to those of other “certain organizations of employees” and in all cases had been disapproved. Besides, re-rating workers because of their organizational affiliation alone would be bad for morale and discipline. [Letter, Dunn, to Long, September 1939; Letters, Nelson, UFWA, to Louis Compton, Spec. Asst to the ASN, September 1939; Letter, Commandant, to ASN(SED), October 1939; RG181; NA-NY; FR, December 1939.]
UFW and Shore Establishments officials met twice to discuss the grievances. Henry Rhine, a union officer, explained that the Yard had since hired other chippers and machinists at a higher rate than that of the grievants, which included Local 137 officer Cullen, some of whom previously had held the maximum rating. The UFW further protested that Long had been disciplined for making supposedly unspecified accusations of discrimination against one of his supervisors. As their members could make complaints only at the direction of the union, the Manager's castigating of Long was inappropriate and not in harmony with President Roosevelt's policy of permitting government workers to be represented by the union of their choice. “Our locals are responsible,” wrote Rhine, “and do not without reason take up any questions.” Long had made the charge on 28 September against a leadingman, William Henes, from the Ordnance shop, stating that he had served as an officer in the machinists' union in the previous year, contrary to Edison's advice on the matter. The CIO workers in the shop naturally feared supervisory retaliation for their affiliation. As an example, Cullen had recently punched in using the wrong man's card. Henes waited until it was late enough to dock Cullen for being late before telling him of the error. [Letter, Commandant, to the ASN (SED), December 1939, enclosing Letters from Long to Capt. Dunn, September 1939, and the reply from Dunn, to Long, October 1939; RG181; NA-NY. The grievance was covered in the union's newspaper. See FR, November 1929.]
In late November 1939 Captain Fisher of the Shore Establishment office said that a general re-rating of large numbers of men was impracticable at the time. As for the Manager's actions, he suggested that perhaps Dunn's actions had been “misinterpreted.” No action would be taken against anyone filing charges “in [a] legal and constitutional fashion,” but protests “must not be based on grounds which are unnecessarily recrimatory or which contain subversive or false accusations.” Giving a warning about filing unsupported charges was in accordance with Department policy. [Letter, ASN to the Commandant, Navy Yard, NY, November 1939, enclosing letter from Henry Rhine, UFWA, to Captain Frank Baldwin, Acting Director, SE, November 1939; Letter, Captain Fisher, to UFWA, November 1939; Letter, Commandant, to the ASN (SED), December 1939. All in RG181; NA-NY.]
The UFW then brought the grievance to the Navy Secretary's office. Once again, Woodward was required to write an account of his staff's actions, and in his letter to the ASN he let his true feelings be known. He agreed that the Yard could well have hired new chippers at a higher rate than those already in place, but it was not an injustice but that he could make no specific comments without knowing the names of the aggrieved men. “[Our] policy is to maintain a reasonably balanced force amongst the three rates of pay and otherwise pay employees in accordance with their ability and adaptability. Length of service is only one of the considerations and it oftentimes occurs that as a man becomes older his efficiency declines.” [Letter, Commandant, to the ASN (SED), December 1939, enclosing Letters from Long, to Capt. Dunn, September 1939, and reply from Dunn, to Long, October 1939; RG181; NA-NY.]
In January 1940 the commandant provided the Department a detailed report about the chippers, providing the following distribution of ratings of the chippers for 1939:
Max. Int. Min. Total % 1 January 1939 67 47 31 145 46.2; 32.4; 21.4 1 January 1940 77 46 141 264 29.2; 17.4; 53.4 The increase of ten in the maximum rating represented an actual turnover of 22 employees in that rating: 12, all of whom were employed before 1939, had been re-rated upward; 5, all of whom had previously worked at the first-class grade, had been reinstated at the maximum rate; and 5 were hired as temporary appointments at the top rate pending the establishment of registers. In 1939 the Yard had certified 186 chippers, all at the minimum rate except for 20 [the source of Rhine's complaint], who were called in at the maximum rate in October. But only five had been found fully qualified and had been retained at the maximum rating; the Shipfitters Shop had reduced or discharged the others for failing to show the needed ability. This shop had had difficulties over the year certifying enough temporary chippers to meet their needs at the lower rates and had tried hiring some at the maximum rate as a way to get the needed help, but of this group only the five already mentioned had worked out. Of the Yard's present complement of 264 chippers, 98 were temporaries, of whom 5 worked at the maximum rate, 6 at the intermediate, and the rest at the minimum grade. Woodward did not believe this an unjust situation. Why the Yard did not promote from within the ranks to meet the labor shortage was not mentioned. [Letter, ASN, to the Commandant, December 1939; Letter, Commandant, to the ASN (SED), January 1940; RG181; NA-NY.]
The documents run out at this point but it seems fair to assume that the Department upheld the navy yard on the grievance. The handling of grievances by the UFW and the IUMSWA was somewhat different from that of the AFL unions in that they chose to pursue their complaints using the traditional hierarchical progression rather than pursuing them simultaneously at the local and Departmental level as was common with their rivals. This may have been done in part because they lacked the historical presence in Washington of the metal and building trades and could not just pop into Navy Department offices at their whim, or that they truly believed in instituting a grievance system, but in the end the results were not much different. If the unions pushed their concern hard enough at the top level they could eventually get a fair amount of information out of the navy yard's management, but lacking a means of impartial arbitration, the unions ultimately had no recourse on resolving individual or group grievances other than to accept the Navy's rulings.
John R Stobo © March 2004