THE STORY OF THE SEARCHLIGHT:
The Voice of the Chevrolet Worker
(Part 3 of 4)
by ronda@ais.org
In 1949, the International leadership recommended that the
rank and file vote in favor of the Union Shop during the upcoming
election. Articles like "Union Shop Vote: Chevrolet Local Aims
for 100% Union Shop" appeared in the paper listing 21 reasons why
members should vote for the union shop, quoting from a UAW General
Motors Department publication.(Dec. 29, 1949)
In the January 26, 1950 issue, a rebuttal was printed titled
"21 Or Bust." (27) In it the writer listed 21 questions and their
answers warning of the consequences of voting for the "Taft-
Hartley Union Shop." Among the objections he listed were:
1. Is the Union Shop something new in the Chevrolet?
Certainly not, the management gave you one in the '30's.
Brought your membership cards to you in person and let you
vote for representation on their own line. Homer Martin, in
his heyday, tried to sell you one to offset any opposition.
2. Will the Taft Hartley Union make our union stronger? In
numbers, yes, economically no, because all the power will
drift to the top. Management and Union boys will get married
so to speak, and quit their clandestine courtship....
6. Why do the top Union officials want a Union Shop under
this plan? Because it is the easiest way out and it will
become an automatic union where the boss will not only
collect the dues but do the organizing, too, and you'll
never know you have a union only when you see the deductions
on the pay stubs....
11. How does labor history show that union and closed shops
were gained? Not by the politicians paternalism, nor by the
bosses' bountiful goodness, but by hard-fought years of class
struggle. Not by collaboration and collusion.
The writer of "21 or Bust", realizing that he was bucking
the tide in putting forward these sentiments appealed to his
readers to give him a fair hearing: "So my fellow union workers,
in voicing my personal experiences, observations and beliefs in
opposition to this crucial question, I am only asking you to bear
in mind that there is always two sides to any issue and both
should be heard without any malice or mayhem, without fear or
favor. Let the truth be found in the balance of reason. That's
democracy...."(Jan. 26, 1950, p.1)
The publication of "21 Or Bust" was met with both praise and
condemnation. One article, "Do We Want a Union" by Bert Boone
defended the author of "21 Or Bust" writing:
Certainly every worker with one bit of human morality wants a
Union. A GENUINE ONE, TOO! However, militant union people
prefer to build a union and not secure one through
paternalism as seems to be the pattern of the shroud that had
been cut for our union today.... The writer of '21 or Bust'
expressed my sentiments 100 per cent. I am in favor of every
worker joining the union through the program of the workers
and not the employer.... Beware of a gift from the boss.
(Feb. 23, 1950, p.4)
Another article, appearing in the column "State of the
Union," explained that the writer had only recently come to agree
with "21 Or Bust." In this article "Chiselers and Pork Choppers
Attempt to Raise Dues", the columnist explained:
Some time ago during the Union Shop election, a brother...
pointed out that once we got a Union Shop we would become
goats for the unscrupulous leadership to exploit as they
pleased. I disagreed then, but now in view of the twelve
dollar assessment we just paid and the proposed dues in-
crease, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe the brother wasn't
right.
(Sept. 7, 1950, p.1)
Condemnation of "21 Or Bust" appeared immediately. For
example, in an article called "I Don't like It" (Feb. 9, 1950),
the writer argued:
That piece in the union paper ["21 Or Bust" - ed]... said we
shouldn't vote for the Union Shop sure made me mad.... I think
everyone should be made to join the union, even if they don't
believe in it. We should make them pay their way.
In response to these condemnations, Coburn Walker in his
President's column, reviewed the anti-censorship policy of The
Searchlight which had been passed by the membership in 1948. He
wrote:
As President of the Local and ex-officio member of the Publi-
city Committee,I feel that unwarranted attacks have been made
on the Publicity Committee by a certain group within the
Local for having permitted Brother ... the right to voice his
views on the Union Shop.
(Oct. 19, 1950)
Walker then referred to the anti-censorship resolution
passed September 12, 1948, which in part reads:
Whereas: Chevrolet Local 659 maintains a paper published
twice monthly for the express purpose of the exchange of
ideas and thoughts of said members; and
Whereas; The membership of Local 659 has on numerous occa-
sions defined the duties of The Searchlight staff as being
EDITORS and NOT CENSORS and to reject only those articles
that are libelous or not in good taste, and UNDER NO CIRCUM-
STANCES WERE THEY TO REJECT ARTICLES MERELY BECAUSE THE
OPINIONS EXPRESSED DID NOT COINCIDE WITH THEIR OWN.
(Oct. 19, 1950)
But it was not just the "certain group within the local"
referred to by Coburn Walker, who were disturbed about the publi-
cation policy of The Searchlight. In response to the article
"Chiselers and Pork Choppers Attempt to Raise Dues" which had
appeared in the Sept. 7, 1950 issue of The Searchlight, one of the
officers of the International Union wrote a response printed in
the October 19, 1950 issue of The Searchlight. He complained:
Although the author of this scurrilous article didn't have
the courage to use my name it is quite obvious that the
union officer he had reference to was me.... I resent being
called a "Chiseler and pork chopper."
The "State of the Union" columnist retorted:
I did not and do not lack the courage to use the... name. The
truth is that I was referring to statements made by some of
his "Yes Men" of the FDR-CIO Labor School in Port Huron.
However, if...[the-ed] foot fits the shoe, I have no objec-
tion to his claiming the title of "Chiseler and Pork
Chopper."
(Oct. 19, 1950, p.1)
The columnist then went on to call into question the various
expenses of the International Union, pointing out that the
purported rationale for the dues increase was to build up a $25
million strike fund to `prevent as many strikes as possible' but
that the recently signed 5 year contract in fact ruled out
strikes for the foreseeable future.
In 1950, the International leadership had sent out a letter
to local newspaper editors informing them that an International
Union publications board would review their publications for pos-
sible libel and conformity with International policy.(29) On the
morning of December 12, 1950, at 8:30 a.m. a telegram addressed to
Coburn Walker, President, was delivered to the Local's office. The
telegram read:
The International Executive Board is requesting that you
appear before it on Wednesday, December 13, 1950, at 4 p.m.,
room 808, Book Cadillac Hotel, Detroit, Mich., to show cause
why the policies and stories carried in the "Searchlight",
publication of 659 are in violation of the policies of the
International Union, UAW-CIO.
(Dec. 14, 1950, p. 1)
The telegram was signed "By Order of the International
Executive Board."
When Local 659's officers and The Searchlight's Editorial
Board appeared as requested, they were told that the International
Executive Board had reviewed issues of the newspaper from October,
1949 to November, 1950 and had found the content of the newspaper
to be "anti-union."
The Local was ordered to change the editorial policy of the
newspaper and to print a copy of the International's condemnations
in The Searchlight.
The Executive Board's statement to be printed in The
Searchlight said in part:
Specifically, the "Searchlight" has consistently been in
violation of UAW-CIO policy in that (a) it made repeated
attempts to sabotage and weaken the Union's campaign for a
union shop in General Motors, and (b) in attempts to sabotage
collection of emergency strike assistance which had been
approved by an overwhelming majority of the Convention, and
(c) in many other cases too numerous to mention.... The Board
has further ordered the officers of Local 659 to cease and
desist publication of material which, by impartial judgment,
would be anti-union in character.
The Officers of Local 659 are also asked by the Board to
make every attempt to eliminate false, misleading and biased
material from the `Searchlight'; and to include, wherever
reasonable or possible, points of view which differ from
those of the local Officers or editors of the `Searchlight'.
The Board specifically stated that nothing in its action
should be construed to limit or impair in any way the right
of the membership, the local officers, or the `Searchlight'
to criticize, differ or oppose.
(Dec. 28, 1950, p.1)
After reviewing the International Executive Board's
condemnation of their newspaper, Local 659 filed a grievance to
be heard at the U.A.W. Convention in April, 1951. They prepared a
defense, citing the U.A.W. Constitution precedents on freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, and local autonomy.
During this period, The Searchlight's pages carried rank and
file expressions of consternation and opposition to the
interference with their newspaper. One article compared the
actions of the International Executive Board with those of
Hitler. The article called "What Do YOU Want?" said:
The enemies of "The Searchlight" Editorial Staff have been
laying down a continual barrage of words by which they expect
to conceal their real intentions. In spite of all their fog
and mist of words, they have not been able to obscure the
real issues, which is: [Will - ed] `The Searchlight' be able
to continue its policy of free and open discussion, or will
it forget those things and devote its pages to Walter Reuther
and the International Executive Board?
Some people are going to a lot of trouble to peddle the
propaganda that criticism of those in office is worng -- that
we should do just as we are told and not complain about it.
That maybe things aren't perfect now but they will somehow or
other get much better. That criticism of Reuther and the
Executive Board will create disunity and disruption and is
therefore to be considered as Union treason....
This is just the same line of baloney that Hitler sold to
the German people; that above all they should not beef or
gripe about those who are in positions of authority.... The
first thing he did when he came in power was take away the
right of free speech, free press, and adjustment of
grievances where the people might register a complaint.
(Dec. 28, 1950, p.2)
Another contribution to the paper, defended in verse the
constructive role played by criticism:
Sometimes I pan the Company
Their Supervision too
I also pan our Local, But,
Right now I'm panning you
Please tell me Mr. Ruether(sic)
`Bout the freedom of the press
But that must be for other folks
And not for us I guess....
The contract may be very good
But do you think it fair
Altho' there's points that I dislike
My gripes I cannot air?
After two other verses, the poet ended his refrain:
And now I'll end this little rhyme
But tell me if you can
When a little criticism
Ever hurt an honest man.
(Dec. 28, 1950, p.2)
The article "Labor Fakirs Protect Interest of Capitalism!"
was also printed in the December 28, 1950 issue of The
Searchlight. It proposed an economic analysis of the International
Union leadership. The article explained:
It has become a problem of the industrial employing class to
create a buffer class at the economic boundary between itself
and [the -ed] industrial working class. This problem is well
on its way to a solution which is contained in the develop-
ment of the leadership, officialdom and bureaucracy of the
conservative labor organizations....
These labor fakirs develop a vested interest in perverted
authoritarian `Unionism'. Like any exploiting class, they
find it necessary to build special organizational machinery
within unions to serve their interests. This is manifest by
cliques, machines, undercover operators, stool-pigeons,
hatchet men, and goon squads.
Added to the direct corruptive influence of this kind of
`Unionism' is the attraction it offers to the worst types of
opportunists, crum-seekers, and working class traitors.
To the workers, these imposters, brazenly or with hypocri-
tical modesty as the circumstances require, credit themselves
with being fighters in the class struggles ... with being
necessary for the conduct of future struggles. On this basis
they justify their fat salaries and tenures of offices....
Workers must abolish the buffer class within Unions.
Meaning the abolition of the reasons for the existence for
this buffer class.
The article offered the following recommendations to deal
with the problem it had outlined:
The rates of pay of all officials must be kept equal to or
below the average wage rate of the workers they represent.
The source of all authority within the Union must come from
the exercise of the workers. `Authority must not be
delegated.'
Nothing more than function should be delegated.
Function should be delegated only to members subject to
recall at all times; whose activities are subject to open
scrutiny by other functionaries and by membership generally;
who must make detailed reports at frequent intervals to the
membership to whom they are responsible. Tenure of office
must be short.
The article ends with the call for the membership to take
control of the union.
A membership meeting of the local, attended by an "overflow
crowd" protested the International Executive Board's actions, and
a petition was circulated and signed. Other criticisms --
cartoons, articles and letters make up the pages of The
Searchlight up to the April, 1951 International Union Convention.
One letter was written by Ed. Cronck, a rank and file
leader of the `37 Sit-Down. Titled "Honest Criticism Hurts No
One", the article reviewed the history of the Reuther brothers.
The writer addressed Walter Reuther with an indictment:
Do you remember how you and your brothers used to tell
us ... how every local should have its own Local autonomy,
and their own Local paper?
(March 8, 1951)
The letter goes on to defend local trade union autonomy.
I believe that we who work in the plants have a right to
our Local. That is the only way we have to tell you when we
think you are wrong. Do you remember Walt, when you told us
that no officer of our Union should stay out of the plant
over 2 years because he forgets all about the worker in the
plant? You should go back in the plant and run for
Committeeman so you could find out what you and your friends
gave us in the G.M. Contract to bargain with. I think that
you would leave the country, you would be so ashamed of
yourself.... I believe you have given away everything that
we ever did have on the bargaining.
(March 8, 1951)
Other letters published in The Searchlight during this period
helped to clarify what the rank and file felt was at stake in the
fight. One said:
Under the five year contract we are not supposed to have to
worry about keeping the union organized and should be able to
spend out [sic] time in educating and organizing our member-
ship.
What's been done? The contract is almost a year old and
instead of the International coming out with a large educa-
tional program which they should be able to afford in view of
the facts that the Union Shop and Dues Checkoff should enable
them to cut way back in their organizing staff and direct the
money saved there into building a stronger and more militant
Union, ruled by the membership.
Instead it seems the five years is to be spent in building
a political machine so strong that the little man will be
unable to raise his voice in objection of any kind. Already
this machine is responsible for the five year contract with
its company security clauses which take away the only real
bargaining power that the working man has (that is to strike
if the Company won't bargain). The contract also contains the
waiver clause which prevents the Union from bargaining on any
unforeseeable condition that may develop in the five years.
Now, this machine wants to increase the dues to $2.50 and
to have the convention every four years and to have four-year
election of officers. At that rate we won't have anything
more than a dues collection agency, which we will pay high dues
for the privilege of working in a sweat shop which is exactly
what the Assembly Plant is and what the company is trying to
do in its other plants.
(Feb. 22, 1951, p.3)
Not only were letters from members of Local 659 printed, but
The Searchlight also received and printed letters from other UAW
locals supporting the fight and asking for copies of the newspaper
to distribute in their areas. For example, from Chicago:
The story of your fight for Local Union autonomy and free
expression has recently been brought to my attention. It is
for this reason that I am taking this opportunity to express
my admiration, respect and agreement with your position....
Under Reuther opposition of a genuine nature is `verboten'.
Much of the rank and file knows that everything is run from
the top down and feel that protests are of no avail.... Our
union must be restored to its previous course of rank and
file control.
(Feb. 22, 1951, p.4)
And from Local 742, UAW-CIO:
I would be interested in distributing 500 copies of your
January 25 issue, or any further issues exposing censorship
of your splendid paper.
I am certain that the story of the attempt to abridge your
right of free press would arouse support for your efforts
among the membership of my Local, Local 742, UAW-CIO.
(Feb. 22, 1951)
In April, 1951, the UAW convention convened in Cleveland.
Article 28, Section 8 of the UAW Constitution was used to justify
the International's suppression of The Searchlight:
Local publications shall conform with the policies of the
International Union.
An editorial from Ford Facts reprinted in the April 19, 1951
issue of The Searchlight describes what happened at the
convention:
One of the most serious things that took place at the UAW
convention in Cleveland last week was something which re-
ceived little notice in the newspapers.... We are referring
to the action of the convention in its condemnation of the
"Searchlight"....
In this particular instance our leaders have chosen to
interpret any criticism of themselves or their ideas as being
in violation of Article 28, Section 8. This, they apparently
think, gives them a license to muzzle any publication which
has the temerity to question the wisdom of their program or
policies.... The `Searchlight' was spanked by Reuther's con-
vention and the majority of the delegates faithfully obeyed
their master by granting the International Union the
authority to crack down on any local union publication that
does not follow union policy -- as determined by
Reuther... and Company.
The Searchlight had lost the battle at the convention, but it
continued the fight locally. Its resistance had been far from
extinguished. In its pages it continued to defend local autonomy
and an uncensored local union press.
The skirmishes with the International and the struggle of The
Searchlight to repeal the suppression continued for a number of
years. In July, 1951, issues of The Searchlight were barred from
the CIO School. (See The Searchlight, July 12, 1951.) In 1952, a
resolution was passed by the membership of Local 659 welcoming
rank and file criticism of union officers. It read in part:
be it further
RESOLVED: Any member of this Local may submit articles
criticizing or acclaiming any officer on the conduct of his
office.
(Jan. 24, 1952, p.1)
In reading through The Searchlight after 1951, there are
periods of lively debate and then periods of only praise for the
International. In 1954 the International put Local 659 into
receivership and 14 members were brought to trial on charges, some
for articles published in The Searchlight.(31)
To be continued