This Day in Labor History: September 14, 1959. President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Landrum-Griffin Act after actively lobbying for its passage. Let's talk about how anti-union forces used union corruption to launch a broad-based attack on all union power!
The passage of this bill was another major blow to organized labor in the early years of the Cold War that moved power away from unions and back to corporations.
There is a widescale public perception of union corruption. Mostly, this is false and a corporate promoted narrative to turn people off of organizing themselves to improve their lives. But with some unions, corruption was (and occasionally still today, is) all too real.
In general, this corruption was concentrated in some of the AFL trades, mostly the smaller building trades unions but also of course in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Teamsters corruption is largely associated with Jimmy Hoffa.
This is not wrong and Hoffa was certainly on the take himself, but it’s actually quite a bit more complicated that that. First, the IBT had major corruption issues before Hoffa took power. Second, the corruption reached deep into several sectors of the union.
The Teamsters had real problems here and earned their reputation, although the problem is less severe today. The AFL version of the United Auto Workers (UAW-AFL–basically the offshoot of UAW locals angry over internal politics in the real UAW) had real problems.
John Dioguardi, a high ranked member of the Lucchese crime family was named head of UAW-AFL Local 102 in New York. Distillery Workers Union executive Sol Cilento was indicted on bribery and conspiracy charges.
These sorts of problems got the attention of politicians. It is worth remembering that outside of union-dense areas, organized labor was extremely unpopular in the United States, giving politicians in the South, Great Plains, and West no reason not to go after unions.
It also allowed politicians from the union-heavy areas to raise their national profile by showing they would buck unions at some risk to their careers.
Anti-corruption hearings in Congress settled in the McClellan Committee, named after its chair, senator John McClellan, a Democrat from Arkansas.
The McClellan Committee originally investigated corruption charges against both business and labor but soon shifted to a Senate committee devoted exclusively to digging into the dark side of organized labor.
After the 1958 congressional election, in which Democrats picked up large gains in both chambers, conservatives struck back by raising fears of communistic and corrupt unions would rule America.
Never mind that the lefty unions were the ones most likely to not be corrupt and the corrupt unions were largely among the most conservative. This was just anti-union propaganda.
Introducing the law was two congressmen–Philip Landrum, a Georgia Democrat, and Michigan Republican John Griffin.
This “bipartisanship” that so many Beltway hacks long for today ignores the fact that the real control in Congress belonged to people who shared very similar conservative positions on many issues, regardless of party registration.
The mandated unions hold internal elections, barred Communists from holding union office for 6 years after they left, required unions submit annual financial reports to the DOL, and limit power to put locals into trusteeship, which is a way to undermine internal union challenges.
Effectively, Landrum-Griffin used corruption as an excuse to extend the anti-union provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act.
Legislation could have dealt with actually corrupt unions rather than serve as a general attack on organized labor, but that was not the point for the legislators involved. They wanted to bust unions.
Organized labor as a whole vociferously opposed Landrum-Griffin. This isn’t because the AFL-CIO didn’t oppose corruption. As a whole, the federation very much did. It also kicked three particularly corrupt unions out of the federation, including the Teamsters.
It’s because the bill’s authors used it as a broader attack upon unions, forcing them into reporting requirements that business did not have to adhere to.
In other words, it was a major step in tipping a playing field only twenty years earlier evened for workers back toward employers. What on earth did communism have to do with corruption? Nothing of course, but it didn’t matter.
Politically of course, it was brilliant to force labor to oppose Landrum-Griffin because they then looked pro-corruption to the general public. Some senators who had made their name fighting union corruption were not happy that the bill attacked the heart of unions.
That included John F. Kennedy, who had introduced his own anti-corruption bill.
Said Robert Kennedy, chief counsel to McClellan, Landrum-Griffin went “beyond the scope of the McClellan Committee’s findings to affect the economic balance at the bargaining table by honest and legitimate unions and employers.”
What made Landrum-Griffin beat Kennedy’s bill was President Eisenhower giving a national speech on September 3 to urge its passage. Congress soon did and Eisenhower signed the law on September 14, 1959.
A fascinating side note to the origins of Landrum-Griffin. David Witwer’s recent research that shows the public incident that led to its passage was largely fabricated. In 1956, the anti-union newspaper columnist Victor Riesel was blinded when the mob threw acid in his eyes.
The story was that the corrupt unions it as revenge for his writing about the “underworld-Communist combine” in his column and to prevent him from testifying against union corruption. It was this act that led to the McClellan Committee
The FBI arrested UAW-AFL Local 102 head John Diogaurdi for ordering the hit. Dioguardi was absolutely a mobster running a union for personal profit. This narrative of bad union thugs attacking hero Riesel for his brave crusade has remained largely unchallenged until recently.
However, Witwer shows that in fact, Riesel never wrote about Dioguardi or any of his operations. Instead, it seems Riesel was corrupt himself and had a financial arrangement with Dioguardi so that he would not write about the mobster.
Union leaders’ testimony to the FBI shows that Riesel was shaking down the corrupt unions to keep their names out of his columns. Dioguardi and Riesel even partied together at mob restaurants in New York’s garment district.
Witwer could not find out exactly why Dioguardi ordered the hit on Riesel. He suggests it may have had something to do with a dispute over the financial arrangements between the two in another shakedown–forcing business to pay up to stay union free.
All the big political players, including the U.S. Attorney, FBI, and the McClellan Committee, found out about Riesel’s double dealings and lies as he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a lot of questions when they talked to him.
But Riesel was too useful in the larger anti-union movement to bother with the truth mattering much. Riesel played the martyr until the day he died. Fascinating stuff. Also deeply disturbing.
Back tomorrow to discuss the 1845 Pittsburgh textile worker strike.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Erik Loomis

Erik Loomis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ErikLoomis

11 Sep
I hate nostalgia with great passion. But there's also no question that even without the virus, present parents are unbelievably overprotective in an era where children (outside of guns in schools) are far safer than they were for the entire 20th century.
I mean, mass murders is not exactly an exception that can be handwaved away. But the fact of the matter is that kids are really really safe on a day to day basis today.
This is not a commentary on the response to COVID in schools--that's a different issue entirely.
Read 4 tweets
10 Sep
This Day in Labor History: September 10, 1897. Luzerne County sheriff deputies slaughtered 19 unarmed coal miners striking outside of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Let's talk about the Lattimer Massacre!
The strikers, primarily German, Polish, Lithuanian, and Slovak immigrants, were fighting for decent wages and working conditions in the one of the most brutal industries in the nation.
The Lattimer Massacre was a touchstone event in the history of the United Mine Workers of America, who used it to organize workers across the region.
Read 33 tweets
9 Sep
This Day in Labor History: September 9, 1985. The largely Latina workforce in the large frozen food processing facilities in Watsonville, California walked out on strike after employers cut their wages. Let's talk about this hard-fought and very tough victory for workers!
After a long, brutal nearly two year strike, the workers won, one of the few major labor victories of the 1980s and a sign that the future of the labor movement would center women of color.
The food processing industry has long been a race to the bottom. It’s a fairly low capital industry that allows capitalists to open new factories wherever they want.
Read 35 tweets
8 Sep
This Day in Labor History: September 8, 1919. Workers return to work after victory in the Pressed Steel Car Company strike at McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, a huge and unexpected victory for the American working class during this dark time of workplace repression!!! Image
The Pressed Steel Car Company was a factory owned by the capitalist Frank Norton Hoffstot in McKees Rocks, a town on the Ohio River a bit downstream from Pittsburgh.
It made steel railroad cars, both for passenger and freight trains and it soon became the second largest producer of such cars in the country. The factory employed 6,000 workers, mostly immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. And it treated them like peons.
Read 37 tweets
3 Sep
This Day in Labor History: September 3, 1991. A chicken factory in Hamlet, North Carolina caught of fire thanks to nonexistent safety procedures, killing 25 workers and injuring another 55. Let's talk about this horrible and extremely preventable disaster!
This entirely avoidable accident was reminiscent of workplace disasters of the past, with open employer contempt for safety regulations and the lives of their workers.
The building where the chicken factory was located was built in the early twentieth century and had been used in various food processing operations in the past, including as an ice cream factory. In 1980, it was purchased by Imperial Foods.
Read 28 tweets
2 Sep
This Day in Labor History: August 2, 1885. White miners in Rock Springs, Wyoming decided to exterminate the town’s entire Chinese community. Whites killed at least 28 Chinese miners in the Rock Springs Massacre. Let's talk about Asian-Asian violence among white workers!
White Americans hated the Chinese.

There isn’t really much reason to complicate the above sentence when talking about the 19th century. Its truth is indisputable.
From the moment whites crossed the deserts in search of California gold and realized, what!, there are Chinese people here! (and Mexicans and Indians and Chileans and a lot of other non-whites), they wanted to eliminate them.
Read 41 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!