Election 1944: Fred W. Perkins columns

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 10, 1944)

As election draws near –
Perkins: CIO still unable to win promise of pay boost

And may have to back Roosevelt without one
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
The election is four weeks from today and it looks as if the CIO supports of President Roosevelt will have to vote for him without official assurance that he is going to order a pay raise for them.

This, despite efforts of Philip Murray, head of the CIO, to get a War Labor Board recommendation for breaking the Little Steel wage formula on the President’s desk by next Monday, and despite a statement today by R. J. Thomas, president of the CIO Auto Workers, that he will do all he can to see that the President will have three weeks in which to make the final decision that would please the unionists, but might antagonize other sections of the electorate. Inflation possibilities are involved.

Roosevelt commitment denied

There’s a story going around that Mr. Roosevelt told union leaders who called on him 10 days ago that the question would have to go over until after election, that there would be no political advantage in unsettling wartime wage policies just before the election and the wage action might produce charges he was attempting to buy votes with other people’s money.

Mr. Thomas said the story “isn’t true.” He was one of the labor leaders in the White House conference. Mr. Thomas has a reputation for straight-shooting and no doubletalk. And all other evidence indicates that the President made no commitment on either side of the question.

Won’t promise early action

William H. Davis, chairman of the War Labor Board, said he could not guarantee a Board decision next week – “I don’t like deadlines. I never said it would be decided by next week.”

A labor spokesman pointed out that any recommendation for a change in wage policies would have to go through the Office of Price Administration, to the Director of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization before it reached the President.

Mr. Davis admitted that “would take considerable time.” He also said that the problem he was trying to impress on the other members of the Board was whether “if wages go up the wage-earner will get anything out of it or will prices go up at the same time so that everybody will lose.”

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 11, 1944)

With election only 27 days away –
Perkins: Major labor trouble plagues Roosevelt from three fronts

Some of ‘breaks’ that help swing the vote flare to beset New Deal on home front
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
Three of the “breaks” that help swing elections appear today on the labor front. All are against Mr. Roosevelt.

• The Petrillo case, in which the head of the American Federation of Musicians (AFL) leaves the President out on a limb by rejecting an official but courteous request that he obey an order of the War Labor Board.

• The Matthew Smith case, in which this leader of non-affiliated unions offered a destructive strike of 70,000 men in 64 vital war plants. Republicans may cite the case in their attacks on the administration’s manner of handling labor problems.

• Disclosure that heads of five railway workers’ brotherhoods were recently pressured, in some cases unsuccessfully, to declare for reelection of Mr. Roosevelt.

As to No. 3, the rail union heads called on the President a week ago to add their weight to other labor groups in asking for a relaxation of wage-control policies, preferably before election.

When they came out of Mr. Roosevelt’s office, George M. Harrison, president of the Railway Clerks and a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, gave reporters the impression that the entire group was enthusiastically in favor of a fourth term.

‘Pressure’ charged

What wasn’t told was that when the rail labor leaders entered the President’s office they found there Dan Tobin, head of the Teamsters Union (AFL) and director of the Labor Division of the Democratic National Committee. Some of the railway men construed Mr. Tobin’s presence as intended to “put the heat” on them, and they so said today.

They pointed out that Mr. Tobin was not a member of their group, could have been there only at the instance of the President, and they construed his participation as purely political.

Split vote predicted

The conversation was reported as dealing only scantily with the subject the railway men had come to talk about, but abundantly about how the members of railway unions – with a membership of approximately a million and a half – should regard Mr. Roosevelt as their friend, despite the bad feeling early this year over the administration’s handling of the railway wage controversy.

None of the rail union heads, it was learned authoritatively, attempted to commit their organizations to the support of Mr. Roosevelt, and some were said to have failed to give their personal pledges. An authority on the political pulse of railway workers says their votes, predominantly in recent years for Mr. Roosevelt will be split.

Petrillo is problem

The group, in addition to Mr. Harrison, included D. B. Robertson (president of the Locomotive Firemen and Engineers), Harry W. Fraser (president of the Railway Conductors), E. E. Milliman (president of the Maintenance of Way Men), and Harvey W. Brown (president of the Machinists Union).

The Petrillo refusal followed a request from the President for compliance with War Labor Board orders that the union lift its ban on members doing work for the transcription divisions of NBC, Columbia Recording Corporation, and Radio Corporation of America.

A high official concerned with labor matters expressed the opinion that the development would cause more unfavorable public reaction against Mr. Roosevelt than against the head of the musicians’ union. This opinion was based on the fact that in the President’s telegram of Oct. 4 to Mr. Petrillo he left no means of enforcements against the union.

‘Very polite’ request

The presidential telegram cited an opinion that “under all the present circumstances the noncompliance by your union is not unduly impeding the war effort,” thus absolving Mr. Petrillo from prosecution under the War Labor Disputes Act.

However, the President’s telegram added:

This noncompliance may encourage other instances of noncompliance which will impede the war effort.

Matthew Smith, defying the government with a threat of a serious war strike, and drawing a “stab in the back” charge from Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, has been in a long conflict with the War Labor Board over its refusal to include spokesmen for independent or non-affiliated unions in the Board’s labor membership. He is identified as a Socialist in politics, but has publicly announced support for Mr. Roosevelt in this campaign.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 12, 1944)

After WLB refuses to act –
Perkins: Labor puts heat on Roosevelt for raise

By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
Union leaders, fighting for a pay-raise order before election, started work today to get the explosive campaign issue into the White House by the end of next week.

The labor members of the War Labor Board are engineering this move, after roundly condemning the public members of that agency for “inexcusable dereliction of duty,” “timidity, contradictions and doubletalk,” “a clear surrender of the Board’s commitment to exercise its judgment,” and “an admission by the public members that they are not competent to perform their duties.”

This upheaval came yesterday after the Board’s public and management members had turned down an American Federation of Labor proposal for a recommendation to the President that he revise the Little Steel formula upward and allow its general application without submission to WLB; and after the same groups of members, with the labor quartet in opposition, had decided it will merely submit a factual report to the President, and will make no “recommendations for action one way or the other with regard to the Little Steel formula.”

Not ‘sufficiently informed’

The WLB said:

The Board is not sufficiently informed as to the possible effects of a modification of the Little Steel formula on the price structure and on the national economy generally to warrant assurance that any modification could be made consistent with the stabilization needs of the country and with the provisions of the Stabilization Act of Oct. 2, 1942.

The labor members immediately went into a huddle and issued their sizzling statement.

Talking to reporters, George Meany, secretary-treasurer of the AFL, declared, “we hope the President will make his decision without regard to the War Labor Board.”

Emil Rieve, president of the CIO Textile Workers, added:

We will make our recommendation added without going through the Board or the Director of Economic Stabilization or any other agency – direct to the President.

Murray scores politics

R. J. Thomas, president of the CIO United Auto Workers, observed:

And it will be on the President’s desk by the end of next week – maybe considerably before then.

The importance of these statements is that most of the CIO and some of the AFL are backing Mr. Roosevelt for reelection to a fourth term. Philip Murray, head of the CIO, has protested the wage issue being made “a football of politics,” and in almost the same paragraph has insisted that the War Labor Board should get the question to the President not later than next Monday.

Thus “the heat” is increased on Mr. Roosevelt.

Nothing like this has ever faced a President running for reelection, for the reason that never before has there been a system of wage control running up to a climax just before the voters go to the polls.

Could have been averted

The climax could have been averted if the War Labor Boards labor members had been agreeable to going along with the Board’s policy of exhaustive inquiry, probably meaning a delay of several weeks more in proceedings now a year old.

But they were not agreeable, and thus some of the President’s strongest supporters plan to put up to him two weeks before Nov. 7 a decision of such importance that it might swing the election. If he turns down or defers the labor plea, he may lose support in quarters that have been regarded as strong for him; if he grants the plea, without insisting upon the routine processes, the Republicans will charge him with buying the election – and may influence a lot of conservative middle-of-the-roaders.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 13, 1944)

Ammunition for GOP –
Perkins: Roosevelt left out in limb by WLB’s inaction

Pay decision now is tied to election
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
Critics of the Roosevelt administration’s labor policies, including Governor Dewey, will find more ammunition for their attacks in the current situation of the War Labor Board.

This board, after spending 10 months in compiling a huge mass of testimony and arguments on the question of revising the Little Steel formula which is the basis of wartime wage control now has disqualified itself, through the stand of its public members from making a recommendation to the President.

The effect is that Mr. Roosevelt, before or after election, will have to make a one-man decision affecting the incomes of an estimated 20 million Americans and with possible repercussions on all other citizens. Through the mechanics of the stabilization program, Mr. Roosevelt could make this decision anyway, but he would be helped in the public mind if he had some backing from the agency that was appointed to handle the wartime wage problem.

Heat applied to President

Thus “the heat” is applied to Mr. Roosevelt, in the closing weeks of his effort for a fourth term, by an agency of his own creation and with the labor members of this agency announcing they will see that the question is before him well in advance of Nov. 7.

If Mr. Roosevelt decides the issue before election, he will have to choose between pleasing or disappointing the labor groups now supporting him; and between risking a defection of labor votes or of chancing an inflationary rise in cost-of-living prices affecting other groups. If he defers the question until after election he will disappointing the labor spokesmen, including Philip Murray of the CIO and George Meany of the AFL, who have shown a determination to get the issue on the presidential desk by the end of next week.

The WLB directed public members to submit the first draft of their report on the cost of living and inequities between wages and prices next Tuesday and then recessed until that date, thus delaying by five more days, at least, Board action to speed the report to the White House.

Labor to fight delays

The labor group of WLB had declared it will not wait for the lengthy processes of the board, including consultation with other government bureaus concerned with stabilization, but will send its plea directly to the White House. This would be contrary to bureau procedure, but would concentrate the heat where the labor spokesmen think it would have most effect.

Board has ‘failed’ President

The labor members of WLB declared:

The wage-earners of this country are entitled to know, and to know now, in direct and specific language, what this board intends to recommend to the President. By dodging this responsibility with another factfinding report, the Board has demonstrated a timidity unworthy of men charged with so important a phase of our war activities.

The President has relied upon the Board to advise him in matters affecting wage stabilization. At a crucial moment in the administration of that policy, the Board has failed him.

Industries with dispute cases with unions before the WLB are alarmed at the Board’s apparent determination to decide pending cases under present stabilization policies “immediately” after completing its report to the President.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 15, 1944)

Perkins: Employers still denied right to call election

New ruling unlikely before Nov. 7
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington – (Oct. 14)
Another labor controversy not likely to be settled before election” Whether employers are to be given a share of the rights now enjoyed by unions under administration of the Wagner Act by the National Labor Relations Board.

The question has been pending since May 19, when NLRB held a hearing in which spokesmen for practically all branches of organized labor opposed vigorously a suggested change in the Board’s rules to grant employers the right, on expiration of a contract with a labor union, and in the absence of a contest by another union, to petition for a collective bargaining election to determine whether the certified union still has a majority in the plant.

NLRB’s five-month delay in deciding the question, it was learned today, is due partly to its inability to reach an agreement on the general question with the War Labor Board.

Morse urges revision

Wayne L. Morse, former public member of the War Labor Board, now a Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Oregon, has attacked exclusion of employers from rights under the Wagner Act as it is now administered. He has declared for legislative revision of this act, but the particular point now long-pending could be handled without any more law – merely by a change in regulations.

Denial to employers of the right to petition for an election (which the National Labor Relations Board would reserve the right to deny) has been charged with bringing on the Montgomery-Ward seizure last spring, although it has been admitted that Sewell L. Avery, head of the company, might have found another line of attack on government policies.

Union delayed election

In this case the company contended the union did not represent a majority of employees in the affected plants, and the union delayed its own petition for an election to determine the question. Finally, the election was ordered, the union won, and the company contended too many units had been included in the election.

Gerard V. Reilly, member of NLRB, proposed the change in the Board’s rules, without reference to the Montgomery-Ward case. In a recent opinion dissenting with the other two NLRB members, he upheld the principles of his proposal.

Agencies in conflict

Correspondence between Mr. Reilly and William H. Davis, chairman of the War Labor Board, shows the conflict between the two agencies. The WLB by a majority vote of its public and labor members is disposed to recognize a union’s certification as continuous during the war period. The NLRB, under the Reilly proposal, would require periodic proofs that a majority of the employees want the union to continue as bargaining agent.

NLRB is a permanent government agency, under the law. WLB is a temporary agency for the war period, under the law, but appears to be the dominant organization in labor-regulatory circles. The present government setup provides no way out of a stalemate when these two agencies are in disagreement – except through presidential action.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 17, 1944)

Perkins: Republicans’ apathy costing them Negro vote, publisher says

GOP leaders warned to get on job or group will go 2–1 for Roosevelt
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
The Republican Party, with the best program on paper for the Negro people, is failing to drive its arguments home with the rank and file of colored voters in the key and doubtful states, according to one of their spokesmen here today.

Alexander Barnes, manager of the Washington Tribune, a Negro newspaper published here warned Republican leaders verbally and through his publication that unless more direct work is done with the mass of Negro voters, they “will go almost 2–1 for President Roosevelt.”

Describing himself as a Dewey supporter, this publisher said it was the general opinion among people who have studied political and economic conditions among Negroes that without a better Republican effort, the Negro votes in such cities as New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Chicago may swing one or more of the doubtful states of New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

Dewey effort expected

The Washington publisher said that Governor Thomas E. Dewey has made only incidental references to the Negro subject so far but that there are reports the Republican nominee plans to go into it at more length before he ends his campaign.

Meanwhile, the CIO Political Action Committee is making a special point of registering Negro voters in the industrial sections, and much Democratic argument is being directed at them.

A survey just completed by a non-political agency shows that leading Negro newspapers among the more than 200 published in this country are almost evenly divided in their support of President Roosevelt or Governor Dewey.

Field workers bungling

Mr. Barnes said he had recently visited all the important centers of Negro population in the Northern industrial states, and reported “all is not well in the Republican ranks because of the alleged apathy and ineptness in the work among Negro voters.” and “that the bungling of the campaign stem: from the Negro brain-trusters working with the Republican National Committee.”

He pointed out, however, “that there is still time to let the Negro have the facts. Experienced campaigners can be put to work and a wavering Negro vote convinced that Dewey is the man. Thousands of party workers are willing to volunteer their services if the bigwigs will permit them to go to work in traditional Republican fashion.”

‘Tricks’ alarm Negroes

An editorial in the Washington Tribune stated that paper “has not yet decided which candidate it will urge its readers to support, but has become unduly alarmed at the strange tricks which are being played. The Democrats ditched Wallace, and then, from information received this week, the Republicans put two men in to woo the Negro vote who are cold, indifferent, unconcerned and even insolent, at times, when Negroes approach them about aiding in the election of their man.”

The “two men” were identified as Negro leaders with whom some others do not agree on campaign tactics.

The Tribune editor’s idea is that:

Mr. Dewey needs a campaign that is going to bring the issues down to earth. He needs a campaign that is going to let the Negro in the pool rooms, the beer gardens, the fields and the farms, and in the coal mines, know that he stands for justice for all men.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 18, 1944)

Perkins: Labor eases demands for ruling on pay

Roosevelt unlikely to act before election
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington (UP) –
Now that the presidential candidates have reached the stage of pulling “facts” on each other, the following facts are presented from the record with regard to whether President Roosevelt will feel it his duty to order an upward revision of wage standards before Election Day.

A week ago, the public members of the War Labor Board decided they would make no recommendation to the President on this dynamic question, but would merely present a factual report on the situation and let him make the decision. Whereupon the labor members of the Board roundly condemned the public members. Two CIO representatives announced a determination to get the question to the President by next Saturday – about two weeks before the election.

But yesterday the labor members, CIO as well as AFL, went along with the public WLB members in deciding that the latter should have until a week from today to submit to the full board their ideas on what should be contained in their report to the President. The labor members’ determination for a quick presidential decision has cooled off. Under the schedule to which they agreed there will be hardly any chance for a ruling by Mr. Roosevelt before the Nov. 7 balloting.

So, the union members and other wage-earners who have been looking for an early and final presidential decision on the case will have to wait until after Nov. 7.

Mr. Roosevelt will be spared the embarrassment of making a decision that (a) would alienate some of his labor support, or (b) risk upsetting the anti-inflationary applecart.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 21, 1944)

Perkins: Rail union papers follows Dewey tack on pay issue

Weekly organ Labor headlines ‘White House Held Responsible for Adverse Decision’
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
By coincidence, Governor Thomas E. Dewey’s slam-bang labor speech in Pittsburgh last night, with much of it directed toward railway workers, is followed today by some uncomplimentary remarks about the Roosevelt Administration in Labor, weekly organ of 15 railroad labor organizations.

The article is headlined.

• “Labor Disappointed Over Failure To Change ‘Little Steel’ Formula”
• “White House Held Responsible for Adverse Decision”
• “‘FD’ Had Given Union Chiefs Definite Impression That He Favored Change”
• “Workers Lose Billions”
• “Talk About Action ‘After the Election’ Branded ‘Just s Goldbrick’ by Meany” (George Meany, secretary-treasurer of the AFL)

The spectacular charge by Governor Dewey that “Bronx Boss” Ed Flynn was employed as counsel by some of the railway brotherhoods in last winter’s railway wage row was not news to railway labor leaders here, although the size of the fee alleged by the Republican candidate ($25,000) was not generally known. Mr. Flynn appeared in preliminary proceedings in Chicago, but was not publicly in the picture when the controversy shifted to Washington.

Whitney hired Flynn

Railway labor executives said Mr. Flynn was employed on the initiative of A. F. Whitney of Cleveland, president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and an outspoken Roosevelt supporter.

Recounting the history of the War Labor Board’s decision to make only a fact-finding report with no recommendations to the White House on a change in the national wage policy, the Labor article stated: “In labor circles, the general impression is that the action was in line with instructions from the White House.”

Election cited as factor

Recounting that labor leaders had an early impression that President Roosevelt favored a relaxation of wage control; that CIO President Philip Murray, after a White House conference, predicted an early change; but that “foes of labor,” identified as the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “laid down a barrage against relaxation of the wage shackles,” the paper said:

Evidently, the Chief Executive, nearing an election, felt he could not face such an attack, even though the interests behind it were those which always opposed the major features of the “New Deal” program.

Thereafter, a change in front occurred. The White House and “FD’s” lieutenants started throwing cold water on the idea of modifying wage controls – at least until after the election.

Meany calls it ‘goldbrick’

Mr. Meany was quoted as saying:

A promise to lift wage controls after “V-E [Victory in Europe] Day” is just a goldbrick so far as the workers are concerned. It won’t mean anything to them.

Mr. Meany based his statement on the premise that with V-E Day:

War contracts will be canceled right and left. Layoffs of millions of workers will start. Other millions will be reduced to shorter working hours. One would have to be gullible, indeed, to believe that employers at such a time will raise wages, even if the administration says they should. In fact, that’s when they will try to cut wages.

Mr. Meany is an AFL member of the War Labor Board and voted against the majority, made up of public and management members, who favored no recommendation, but only a presentation of facts and statistics, to the President. CIO members belligerently threatened to place the issue on the President’s desk without regard to the Board’s procedure, but have cooled off in this determination – reportedly because they were informed such action would work against the reelection chances of the candidate they are supporting.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 22, 1944)

Perkins: The ‘annual-wage’ issue

By Fred W. Perkins, Press Washington correspondent

Washington –
The question of whether or not American industry can or should guarantee an annual wage or steady work the year around to wage earners isn’t exactly an election issue, but at the same time it has some connection with the balloting Nov. 7.

Neither major party platform covers the subject, nor has it been dealt with specifically by either the Republican or Democratic candidate for President. But with the increasing attention being given to the right of the man who works for wages to some assurance of a dependable income, it is conceivable that the post-war period will include a real drive toward an objective that authorities agree would represent a great advance in the industrial and economic life of this country.

So, the question related to the election is whether President Roosevelt or Governor Dewey would be most likely to espouse this idea and give effective national leadership to it.

Mr. Roosevelt’s friends will argue that he is the man for this particular job, because of his labor record.

Mr. Dewey’s supporters will counter with the argument that their candidate is more likely to be successful in assuring steady work for all, as the full sympathy and cooperation of business would be required to reach this objective without government coercion; that Mr. Dewey could be relied on to enlist business support, and Mr. Roosevelt couldn’t.

Nunn-Bush plan

Recent evidence of interest in the guaranteed wage or steady work idea was a discussion by radio on America’s Town Meeting of the Air.

One of the two speakers on the “pro” side was Henry L. Nunn, shoe manufacturer of Milwaukee.

He said:

On July 3, 1935, management and the workers in our Milwaukee factory signed what might be called a share-the-production and 52-paychecks-per-year agreement.

Over good times and bad, it was found that production wages had maintained a more or less constant percentage of the value of business done, so it was agreed that this share, determined by experience, should be the basis for dividing the value of production between the workers and the company. We established drawing accounts for our workers, based on estimated annual income – one fifty-second to be withdrawn each and every week. Adjustment with actual earnings is made monthly.

Nine years in effect

It was a thoroughly new concept. No longer was the company buying labor as a commodity. The innovation made a common enterprise of the business, Sharing the value of production with the workers.

For more than nine years these workers have received an annual income which, we have reason to believe, is much more than the average for the industry. For 482 consecutive weeks, these workers have received a paycheck, regardless of how many hours were worked.

The Nunn-Bush Shoe Company’s plan varies from others in various enterprises that have found it possible and practicable (and according to what they say, very wise) to guarantee steady pay or steady work. The Procter & Gamble Company in Cincinnati has a different plan, and the Hormel Packing Company’s plan is different from both. There are plenty of plans, but so far they have been applied only in individual enterprises, and no attempt has been made to adopt the idea for huge industries such as coal mining or steel manufacturing or auto production.

CIO speaker

The other favoring speaker on the Town Meeting program was Harold J. Ruttenberg, research director of the CIO United Steel Workers, who gave most of his attention to the annual-wage demand in the current wage case of that union before the War Labor Board. He noted that his union “took the annual wage off the shelf of idle talk and put it into the arena of collective bargaining.”

However, the WLB panel was much less certain that this federal wartime agency could legally and with propriety order such a drastic step in American industry. Some opinion is that the problem will be solved eventually only through an overall organization of American industry, working voluntarily to level out the peaks and valleys that now disfigure the peacetime chart of industrial production.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 26, 1944)

More worries for New Deal –
Perkins: Two labor agencies draw fire of Roosevelt backers

‘Wishy-washy’ action of WLB on wage issue and NLRB ‘favoritism’ both assailed
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
Two federal labor agencies are under outspoken criticism today from union leaders, some of whom are in the front of the fourth-term drive for President Roosevelt.

The War Labor Board is in the line of fire because of the amount of time taken by its public members in completing a report of the relationship between prices and wages – leading up to a decision by President Roosevelt on whether the Little Steel wage formula should be broken.

The National Labor Relations Board is criticized by American Federation of Labor spokesmen for a decision announced Tuesday which apparently ignored precedents and favored the CIO in the question of how employees of the merged Western Union and Postal Telegraph systems should be organized.

Roosevelt ‘on spot’

The WLB’s partial report on the wage-price situation, already hit by the CIO, was described by George Meany, secretary-treasurer of the AFL, as “wishy-washy, lacking any recommendations whatever, put up in such a way that the President will be able to find support in it for anything he wants to do – whether to turn down the wage demand or change the formula in any one of several different ways.”

And who put the President on the spot in this matter? It was the War Labor Board, with the labor members dissenting. It was the Board’s plain duty to make some kind of a recommendation, either for or against. Instead, and after more than 10 months of involved procedure, the public members plan to do something that could be accomplished just as well by one of the panel reports already available.

Complain of delays

Chairman William H. Davis of WLB admitted that his qualified plans to get the wage case out of his agency and to the White House by Nov. 1 had been abandoned.

R. J. Thomas, president of the CIO United Auto Workers and like Mr. Meany a labor member of WLB, showed disappointment at the way things were going, and it was learned that Mr. Davis had received two telegrams from Philip Murray, president of the CIO, complaining in vigorous language against the Board’s delays.

The Murray telegrams were of such a nature that Mr. Davis declined to make them public. And it was learned that after the telegrams were dispatched CIO leaders telephoned Mr. Davis, asking that the messages not be given to the press.

Political maneuver?

This latter procedure was regarded as part of the political maneuverings in the wage case.

The CIO leaders worked strenuously until a week ago to get the wage case on the President’s desk in time for a decision before election, but they are reported to have been advised that these activities were likely to cost Mr. Roosevelt votes.

Criticism of the NLRB’s decision in the Western Union case was augmented by Mr. Meany and Joseph A. Padway, counsel for the AFL. The latter alleged “undue CIO influence in the National Labor Relations Board,” resulting in a decision favoring the CIO on the same set of facts that had previously produced a different decision.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 27, 1944)

10 days before election –
Perkins: AFL demand for decision on pay formula perils WLB

Federation withdraws from board hearings; dispute may cost Roosevelt labor votes
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
Ten days ahead of election, the National War Labor Board was plunged today into apparently the most serious of its periodic crises, with the possibility that it may get worse and affect some labor votes for President Roosevelt.

The American Federation of Labor members have withdrawn from settlement of wage cases involving the “Little Steel” formula until the Board makes a report or recommendation to the President on the proposal of the Board’s labor members that this yardstick be broken.

The danger of further cleavage in this wartime agency was indicated by a statement of George Meany, secretary-treasurer of the AFL and a board member, that Chairman William H. Davis “invited us to withdraw, period.” The intimation was that the withdrawal might become complete, which would break up this 12-member agency organized on a basis of equal representation for the public, management and labor, and with the labor members divided between the AFL and the CIO.

But Mr. Meany declared:

We have not considered this invitation to withdraw and we are not considering it. We just haven’t done anything about it.

Chairman Davis said, “I certainly did not invite the AFL members to withdraw from the board,” but he added that members, including those representing labor, ought to abide by the majority decisions and accept their share of responsibility for the board’s actions.

Mr. Davis said he could see no similarity between this situation and the one in 1940, when John L. Lewis broke up the National Defense Mediation Board (predecessor of WLB) by withdrawing the CIO members.

CIO eases pressure

The background of the situation:

Both CIO and AFL members of the WLB pressed with full vigor until about a week ago to get the wage question to the White House, in ample time for Mr. Roosevelt to make a decision before election. The CIO members supporting the President for reelection, suddenly took off, the pressure, and then the AFL members, who are not declared supporters of Mr. Roosevelt, began to put it on.

The CIO members were informed, according to statements in labor circles, that their pressure for a presidential wage decision just before election was likely to lose votes for the candidate they are supporting.

Rank and file restive

The AFL members, led by Mr. Meany, seem to be under no such political inhibition, and would like the heat applied to the White House as far as possible in advance of the election.

Rank-and-file union members, in many states and of both CIO and AFL, are reported restive under the maneuvers by which the WLB has delayed a decision on the wage question for many months and now is in position to put it off until after election.

The WLB setup of equal representation from the public, management and labor is being challenged by some labor authorities who contend that labor questions as well as all others should be determined only by representatives of the public.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 29, 1944)

‘The Voice’ gives $5,000 –
Perkins: Clothing firms backing PAC with cash

All employ members of Hillman’s union
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
A report on file today with Congress, as required by the Corrupt Practices Act, by the CIO-sponsored National Citizens Political Action Committee (a twin of the other PAC), shows more than a score of clothing manufacturers as contributors of $100 to $500 each to this organization for reelection of President Roosevelt.

These manufacturers are members of the industry in which the dominant union is the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, of which the president is Sidney Hillman, who is also chairman of both Political Action Committees. Some of the concerns listed as contributors were the following, all in New York City: Acme Pants Company, Topp Overcoat Company, W&C Clothing Company, Carlyle Clothes, Winshire Clothes and Dutchess Slacks Companies.

No corporations on list

According to their listing, none of the contributing concerns are corporations. The Corrupt Practices Act makes it an offense for “any corporation whatever” to make a political contribution in connection with a national election, and also forbids any political committee to receive such contributions. The law makes no mention of business concerns not organized as corporations.

Total contributions up to Oct. 23 to the Political Action Committee were given as $271,531, in comparison with the $1,500,000 which Chairman Hillman announced in August might be raised. Of the total contributed, $29,614 represented unlisted gifts of less than $100. Among the largest contributors was Frank Sinatra, “The Voice,” who was down for $5,000.

Union donations curbed

The Corrupt Practices Act, as amended by the War Labor Disputes Act, also makes it a punishable offense for “any labor organization” to contribute in connection with national elections.

Another report just received by Congress shows that the International Ladies Garment Workers Union Campaign Committee for Roosevelt and Truman had collected $85,237 up to Oct. 24, almost entirely from campaign committees of local unions and of joint boards representing various associations of workers in the women’s garment industry. The largest contribution listed was $27,500 from the New York Joint Board Cloak Makers Union Campaign Committee.

The Ladies Garment Workers Campaign Committee listed expenditures up to the date of the report totaling $68.165, including a contribution of $35,000 to the Liberal Party of New York, David Dubinsky is president of the union and is also active in the Liberal Party, which was created after a left-wing group, with the cooperation of Mr. Hillman, took over control of the American Labor Party in New York.

PAC held within law

Mr. Dubinsky and others called this week on President Roosevelt to arrange for a great rally in Madison Square Garden at the close of the campaign.

Arguments are expected in Congressional committees after the campaign on whether any of these activities violate the spirit or the letter of the law.

Attorney General Francis Biddle has ruled repeatedly that activities of the Political Action Committee were within the law.

The reports to Congress also show that Republican fundraisers have not been idle. For instance, the Republican Finance Committee of Pennsylvania reports that on Oct. 25 it had collected $912,713 to add to a balance of $18,274, making a 1944 fund of $930,987. It had spent $609,477. Among the large contributors were members of the Pew and DuPont families, and also former Senator Joseph Grundy.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 30, 1944)

Political action ‘in the raw’ –
Perkins: Miner outtalks hecklers yelling ‘Dewey, phooey!’

Speaker didn’t order disturbers ousted, so some itching for fight are disappointed
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

High Coal, West Virginia –
The meeting of the United Mine Workers, called in a school building near here to discuss whether rank-and-file members should vote for President Roosevelt or Governor Dewey, was opened with a prayer by the Rev. Fred D. Fuller.

A member of the union, he works at the Ferndale mine of the Webb Coal Co. and is also pastor of the Baptist Church at nearby Madison.

But hardly had the pastor’s gentle supplication ceased when there was a terrific outburst of profanity from four men trying to drown out the speech of William Blizzard, vice president of UMW District 17. The four specialized in a foghorn call of “Dewey, Phooey.”

He outshouted ‘em

This Bill Blizzard has had a long career in UMW affairs, including a course in the tactics of how to break up meetings of the opposition. He could have instructed his friends to throw the disturbers out on their ears, in accordance with UMW routine, but he didn’t. Instead, he outshouted the hecklers.

And just before Mr. Blizzard got to the end of his reasons why coal miners ought to support John L. Lewis by voting for Mr. Dewey, the disturbing quartet left the hall. Thus, there was no fistfight, which apparently disappointed some at the meeting.

Leaving out the unprintable words both sides used in the heckling, the disturbers were described variously as “company stooges,” “Democratic payrollers” and “scabs.” The quartet claimed UMW membership, but one definitely was identified as a shoe repairman in Whitesville – and the miners objected to a cobbler advising them how to vote.

Just a sample

This was politics in the raw – a sample of what is going on every day in Southern West Virginia as part of John L. Lewis’ effort to induce miners to quit their habit of voting for Mr. Roosevelt and to vote for Mr. Dewey.

Ernest Lewis, treasurer of the UMW local here, told Mr. Blizzard the 500 miners there would support the union policy unanimously. Mr. Blizzard said 13 West Virginia locals have endorsed Mr. Roosevelt and about twice as many have gone officially for Mr. Dewey.

Bill Blizzard was encouraged to think he will be successful in turning to Governor Dewey 10 to 20 percent of the Roosevelt miners in the 1940 election. Political prognosticators say that would swing the state. West Virginia has only eight electoral votes, but they might be important in a close election.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (October 31, 1944)

Perkins: West Virginia miners stick to Roosevelt

Dewey’s only hope is in Southern section
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Grant Town, West Virginia –
A factor in the fight over whether coal miners are going to vote for Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Dewey and possibly swing the electoral votes of the doubtful states of West Virginia and Pennsylvania is Joe Zieminski.

Joe lives in Grant Town, a good-looking community built around a big coal mine of the Koppers Coal Company.

President of local

He was in the midst of his family of a wife and six children and their clean faces contrasted with the soiled head of the family, who hadn’t had a chance to wash up.

Joe Zieminski, a big fellow, is president of Local 4047 of the United Mine Workers and has also been the chairman of the forces working within the miners’ union to bring about home rule for the union organization in which most of the district officers are named by President John L. Lewis.

Joe said 90 percent of the miners in his local are going to vote for President Roosevelt, just as they have three times previously.

Home rulers for Roosevelt

He paid tribute to Mr. Lewis as a union leader and a bargainer with the coal companies, but when it comes to politics – well, Mr. Lewis could vote for Mr. Dewey if he wanted to, but not Joe Zieminski or his friends. They were going down the line for FDR.

All the local unions involved in the home-rule fight have declared for Mr. Roosevelt, so it would seem the home-rule movement is hooked directly with the Roosevelt support, and against Mr. Lewis in his presidential preference. But Roosevelt supporters in the Fairmont district don’t want to put it on that basis. They say Mr. Lewis may be right in his policy of appointing officers for districts unable to select the right kind of officers for themselves.

Dewey hopes in South

Into this comes a strong hint that Communist influence is trying to get a foothold in the United Mine Workers, which Mr. Lewis, according to all published statements, would be against.

Roosevelt sentiment here in Northern West Virginia seems stronger among the miners than it did in the southern section of this state. If Mr. Dewey is to carry West Virginia, it is the southern end which must furnish the margin.

Republicans get some cheer from reports that McDowell County, far to the south and the largest coal-producing county in the country, is swinging their way.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (November 1, 1944)

Perkins: Check election returns from Arthurdale; homesteader claims it will go for Dewey

Miner objects to over-supervision
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Arthurdale, West Virginia –
Memo for a week from today: Watch the election returns from Arthurdale, model community of subsistence homesteads built by the New Deal.

One of the homesteaders said today that it is going heavily Republican, although it was nearly unanimous for Mr. Roosevelt four years ago.

The complainant was a coal miner, one of those transported from dingy mining towns and deposited here in an attractive dwelling, surrounded by grass, fresh air and the beautiful rolling country of Preston County. The trouble with this miner was that he is one of the buyers of the houses which the New Deal built here, and which the administration is now trying to sell off, with the idea of getting out of the subsistence homestead business. He showed his contract of sale, under which he is required to pay $22 a month until 1982, if he lives that long – he is now about 45.

One of his objections

This homesteader cannot be named. In fact, he said, “they” had told him not to talk to newspaper reporters. That was one of the things to which he objected. The others all had to do with government supervision of his affairs.

“They used to try to make us kind of share up around here,” said the miner, “but there were too many loafers trying to live off the rest of us, and we stopped that. But still, every time you turn around, there’s some government regulation staring you in the face.”

That seems to be the reaction you get, after a few years, toward the New Deal’s ventures in collectivism, when they encounter the individualist in these mountains.

To check up on it the reporter went to see M. B. Mott, the project manager for the Federal Public Housing Authority.

Bomber parts factory

We stood on Mr. Mott’s porch and looked at Arthurdale. It was beautiful in the autumn sunshine. Neat little houses and homesteads stretched away until the hills provided a backdrop. Over there was a community center and the community store. Farther away were three factory buildings, now leased by the Ballard Aircraft Company and making parts for bombers.

There were 165 housing units in view. Mr. Mott said 72 are in process of being sold. The community represents about 800 men and women and children, in addition to the 125 young men who have gone away to the armed services.

Civic spirit waning

Mr. Mott admitted that some in the community are not full of the community spirit on which Arthurdale was founded, but he pointed out that 114 of the original 155 homesteaders are still here.

The New Deal put millions into Arthurdale, and more millions into similar projects, many of which are in process of liquidation. No authority has claimed that there will be anything like a full return to the public treasury.

“You can’t measure these things in dollars,” said Mr. Mott. “Out of it we’re getting a better class of citizenry – look at the healthy children around here.”

Arthurdale has been much identified with Mrs. Roosevelt, who has visited here frequently.

So, if Arthurdale goes Republican next week, it will be a surprise to the New Deal. But the miners said it will.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (November 2, 1944)

Perkins: Dewey seeks miners’ favor in second bid

Surveys give GOP slim hope for swing
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

When Governor Thomas E. Dewey makes another invasion tonight of this key political state, with speeches in the “Twin Cities” of the hard-coal region – Wilkes-Barre and Scranton – he will be attempting to crack the coal miner vote which most observers believe has not yet been greatly affected by the anti-Roosevelt declarations of John L. Lewis.

Here in Western Pennsylvania, the soft coal region, surveys have produced opinions that the best the Republicans can hope for is a swing of 10 to 20 percent among the miners away from their old political love.

Pennsylvania’s governor, Edward Martin, who is campaigning daily for the Dewey-Bricker ticket, said today he was sure of a “large Republican vote” among the United Mine Workers in some sections, and also from AFL trades unions and the railway brotherhoods. He even predicted that Governor Dewey will receive substantial support from workers in steel mills, who are organized under the CIO, the labor organization most active in the fourth-term drive.

Martin optimistic

Governor Martin said:

I am certain that much labor support will be behind Governor Dewey in next Tuesday’s voting. That will be healthy for the country, because if labor votes all on one side it would encourage the evil of setting class against class. It would be a bad thing if labor were solidly Republican. I am sure it will not be solidly Democratic in this state.

One argument being used with the coal miners is based on the fact that their union will have to enter contract negotiations with coal operators next March. The present contract, which produced a long and bitter conflict in 1943, punctuated by four strikes and dramatized by government seizure of the coal mines, will end on April 1, 1945.

With the anti-Roosevelt attitude of Mr. Lewis a matter of record, the miners are being told that their hopes for higher wages and more favorable working conditions depend on Governor Dewey moving into the White House.

Signs for Democrats

Signs favorable to the Democrats have been found by investigators in all the important coal counties of Western Pennsylvania, But all of them have reported that the Republican presidential ticket will get “some” votes from the miners. The important question is how much is “some?”

Most of the United Mine Workers district officials support the Dewey campaign. But some district officers claim to be “neutral” and a few minor officials are openly backing Mr. Roosevelt.

The miner vote is most important in two states – West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In West Virginia, with only eight electoral votes, it bulks larger because the 110,000 coal miners are a larger proportion of the total population than the 190,000 are in this bigger state, with 35 electoral votes.

In West Virginia, this writer found symptoms of a considerable swing toward Governor Dewey in the southern section. Evidence of a swing diminished in the northern sections of West Virginia, and the same was true in the neighboring regions of Pennsylvania.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (November 3, 1944)

Perkins: UMW anthracite leader throws support to Dewey

By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania –
What Jonn Kmetz has to say is important when you’re trying to learn how this section of the coal country is going to vote next Tuesday.

Although there are some new manufacturing industries here coal mining is still the predominant way of the great mass of wage-earners in this district to make a living.

And John Kmetz is the International representative of the councils of the United Mine Workers from one of the anthracite districts, and he is also president of the United Mine Workers District 50 – its catchall department.

Longtime miner

Mr. Kmetz is a big and personable man who was born in Czechoslovakia and was brought to this country as a child. He went to work as a mine breaker boy when he was seven, went into underground work at 11, and spent 20 years at it until he became an aboveground official of the miners’ union. Mr. Kmetz got his education by night work.

He was chairman in 1936 of the Newer Nationalities Committee which had a part in producing a pro-Roosevelt gathering estimated at more than 100,000 persons. Mr. Roosevelt addressed the throng, under the sponsoring of John L. Lewis.

Works for Dewey now

But now, says Mr. Kmetz:

I ask all my friends – Poles, Italians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Slovaks – to vote for Thomas E. Dewey. The New Deal is favoring our union opponents.

How many of his friends Mr. Kmetz may take with him into the Dewey camp is, of course, problematical.

Thomas Kennedy, International secretary-treasurer of the United Mine Workers, and thus a sidekick of John L. Lewis, has been silent in this campaign. His office at nearby Hazleton said today he contemplated making no statement. Mr. Kennedy is a former Democratic lieutenant governor of this state.

Mr. Kennedy, although closely connected with Mr. Lewis in administration of the United Mine Workers, did not appear in last night’s Dewey meetings in Wilkes-Barre and Scranton.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (November 5, 1944)

Perkins: Leader hopes to give Dewey 25% UMW vote

Hard coal area still strong for Roosevelt
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Scranton, Pennsylvania – (Nov. 4)
The maximum hope of United Mine Workers leaders in the Pennsylvania hard coal area is to pull to the Dewey camp one-fourth of the 90 percent of miners who, they believe, voted for President Roosevelt in 1940.

The prediction that the 25 percent will be pulled came from a District UMW official who is a Dewey man.

His open Dewey sympathy is not met throughout the mine worker organization of district officials. Some of them are lukewarm and others are reported privately supporting Mr. Roosevelt.

This, despite the general belief that even if John L. Lewis could not divorce his union followers from Roosevelt allegiance, he at least could count on unanimous support from the field and district officers and organizers. most of whom are dependent upon Lewis’ favor for their jobs.

Lewis stays away

Mr. Lewis hasn’t appeared in the anthracite region during this campaign. He seldom does. Thomas Kennedy, International secretary-treasurer, and formerly Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, lives at Hazleton, near here, but has not appeared in the campaign.

The Democrats have capitalized on Mr. Kennedy’s silence by digging out a fairly old speech, castigating the Republican Party in general. The Republicans appear to have overlooked a piece of ammunition that could be used on their side. It consisted of some remarks about a month ago by Mr. Kennedy in criticism of “government by decree or fiat” with apparent direct reference to the Roosevelt administration’s handling of last year’s coal wage controversy.

Speech emphasized

The newspapers in Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, most of them Dewey supporters, gave much attention to a speech in the huge Wilkes-Barre Dewey rally by John Kmetz, a district representative of the miners’ union and also president of UMW District 50. Mr. Kmetz devoted much of his talk to an effort to demonstrate that Communists and their support of the Democratic presidential nominee constitute a real menace to the United Mine Workers.

Mr. Kmetz is credited with real influence among the large groups of Slovaks, Poles, and other nationality groups in this section.

Conclusions by this writer from visits to miming sections of West Virginia and Pennsylvania indicate that considerable swings of miner strength from President Roosevelt to Mr. Dewey are indicated only in the southern section of West Virginia and the eastern or anthracite section of Pennsylvania. The symptoms of a swing seemed to fade out in Northern West Virginia and Western Pennsylvania.

The results will be easy to check because of the concentration of miners in certain voting precincts.