Labor headed for wide split in 1944 election
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer
Washington –
Feelers of the national political pulse are beginning to note symptoms of an extension into the 1944 presidential campaign of the AFL-CIO split in organized labor.
The CIO is steadily becoming more identified with a fourth-term drive for President Roosevelt, while the AFL is repeating and expanding criticisms of the administration.
For instance, the AFL’s weekly news service today, following up an attack by John P. Frey, president of the federation’s Metal Trades Department, blamed wartime labor troubles on the lack of “a clear and consistent national labor policy.”
The blunt truth
It continued:
The public should understand that most disputes which lead to strikes these days do not involve quarrels between management and labor. The blunt truth is that the fight is between labor and the government’s policy, as it is contradictorily administered by federal agencies.
The article concluded:
We still think that strikes under any circumstances are indefensible in wartime. But when workers are driven to strike under such conditions, the blame should be put where it belongs – on the government.
The CIO has made no such inclusive charges, although it has joined with the AFL in an attempt to discredit the cost of living figures of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and to force an upward revision of the War Labor Board’s wage-freeze formula.
Now the MESA
Criticisms of the Roosevelt administration have also been made by spokesmen for large groups of organized workers not members of the AFL or CIO. These include the railway brotherhoods and John L. Lewis’ United Mine Workers.
A third group which asserts it isn’t being treated right is made up of independent unions built around the Mechanics Educational Society of America, now in a row with the War Labor Board over that body’s policy of confining labor representation in its membership to representatives of the AFL and the CIO.
These developments have produced the opinions in the minds of political observers that Mr. Roosevelt, if he is a nominee, cannot be sure of the great mass of labor support he has had in three campaigns; that if the labor-sponsored criticisms continue, the support for the two major candidates may be in approximate balance.