US Labour History - Minneapolis Teamster Strikes of 1934
Lead-off given by Martyn Ahmet at central branch meeting Tuesday 14th April
Introduction
In 1934 workers in the US were stirred by a series of dramatic strikes in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The union involved was the General Drivers Local 574 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), an American Federation of Labor affiliate, the principal union of workers in the US at that time.
In those fights, Local 574 went from a being a small “business union” unit that focused on organising a few skilled workers, to being a mass organisation that drew in hundreds of previously unorganised workers.
This change, recounted in Farrell Dobbs’ book ‘Teamster Rebellion’, resulted from the emergence of a new, militant leadership that gradually gained control and proved its competence in the eyes of rank-and-file members who wanted to use the union’s power in defence of their class interests.
It is this feature of the strikes that makes them relevant for us today.
As the economic crisis deepens and attacks on ordinary people’s living standards accelerate, the question of how to fight back will be posed more and more to a growing layer of workers.
For many workers the union is often invisible in the workplace, or not seen as a vehicle for defending workers’ interests. How to change that situation around, is an important question for socialists today and the 1934 strikers offer some useful lessons in that task.
Context: The world of the early 1930’s
What was the context for the struggles that erupted in Minneapolis in 1934?
In October of 1929, the New York stock market crash heralded the beginning of a deep going recession, both in the United States and most other western capitalist countries.
Between 1929 and 1933 industrial production plunged nearly 50 percent. Wages were driven down and millions made unemployed.
By 1933, one out of ever four workers was jobless. An estimated 1.5 million homeless wandered the roads of the country in search of work. Working farmers were driven off the land as farm foreclosures skyrocketed.
In response, an increasing number of employers used the threat of unemployment to cut back on wages and working conditions of those still in work.
For instance, in Minneapolis, where in early 1934 approximately one third of the population was unemployed, trucking companies, which were to be the focus of the dispute, paid between 10 and 18 dollars for a 54 to 90 hour working week. It was often the case that employed workers needed supplementary public assistance in order to support their families.
Significantly, the farming area surrounding the city of Minneapolis was even more devastated. Net farm income (in 1932) was only 6% of what it has been in 1929.
Working class response
What was the working class response? How did workers respond?
Initially most workers seemed stunned by the impact of the recession. Between 1929 and 1931 there was little or no response. National hunger marches occurred in 1931 and 1932. In 1933 workers began to resist in localised strikes, many of which were defeated.
One of the biggest obstacles to launching an effective fight back during this period was the American Federation of Labor (APL) itself.
Founded in 1886, the dominant view amongst its leaders was that of “business unionism”.
Based on the idea that union strength would come through collaboration with the employers and that the unions should not involve themselves in political struggle.
This was reinforced by the craft nature of its organisation. Each union was limited to the skilled workers in a particular trade. The result was an unwelcoming attitude to the mass of unorganised workers seeking effective union representation and a bitterness by many workers towards the “job trust” approach of AFL units.
If anything, membership in unions actually declined in the early years of the Depression.
The Teamster Union (which Local 574 was part of), which has been led since before World War I by Daniel J Tobin, itself had 80,000 members and a conservative bureaucracy that received high wages and expenses.
Most officials lived in splendid isolation in Washington and more often than not sided with the employers in labour disputes.
Still, despite all these obstacles, the greatest upsurge in US labour history was kicked off by three citywide strikes in 1934.
- The autoworkers in Toledo
- Longshoremen in San Francisco
- The Teamsters in Minneapolis
Minneapolis 1934: The Communist League of America
Local 574 was a unit of the AFL for organising workers in the coal industry in Minneapolis. Typically moulded on the “business union” idea the Local’s business agents had signed a closed shop agreement involving a small number of workers in return for not getting involved in any organising drives for the whole industry.
The transformation of Local 574 from a moribund instrument of class collaboration into a vehicle for leading and organising workers struggles was undertaken initially by a small group of socialists involved in the coal industry where 574 had jurisdiction.
The story is told by one of the group, Farrell Dobbs, who was recruited to that effort in the fall of 1933. Dobbs himself, a former Republican voter, was radicalised, like so many others, under the impact of the Depression.
These socialists were members of the Communist League of America (CLA). The CLA had been formed in 1929 after members of the American Communist Party had been expelled for supporting the views of Leon Trotsky in the internal struggles of The Communist International.
Initially the CLA tried to win members from the CP to their view, but when Stalin’s political direction resulted in the defeat of the working class in Germany, the CLA began the task of rebuilding the socialist movement in the US.
The Minneapolis branch of the CLA was some 40 members strong, the majority of whom had been won from the local CP in the expulsion. Key members had long experiences in the Minneapolis labour movement, such as 45-year-old Vincent Ray Dunne and 50-year-old Carl Skoglund, both of whom worked in the coal industry.
The CLA was therefore well placed to launch its campaign.
In ‘Teamster Rebellion’, Dobbs explains the local party’s perspectives:
- Workers were radicalising under the impact of economic depression.
- To mobilise them for action, it was necessary to start from their existing level of understanding
- In the course of battle a majority could be convinced of the correctness of the CLA’s trade union policy. They would come to understand that the leadership within the AFL was largely responsible for the fact that not a single strike had been won by an union in the city during the previous decade.
- To drive the point home it was imperative to show in the opening clash with the bosses that a strike could be won.
Dobbs explains: “Of course, they could not assume immediate leadership of the union. Their role as leaders would have to develop and be certified through the forthcoming struggles against the employers. To facilitate that objective it was necessary that all party members in the city understand and support the projected Teamster campaign. Toward that end the whole concept was thoroughly discussed in the party branch and firm agreement was reached on the steps to be taken.”
At each step of the way the CLA was confronted with organisational and political challenges as the struggle unfolded.
- How to overcome the resistance of the local AFL officialdom and business agents to a militant struggle for workers’ rights.
- How to win allies within the working class movement to support for Local 574’s struggle.
- What tactics to employ in dealing with Minnesota Governor Floyd B Olson.
In the course of the struggle they had to deal with:
- Redbaiting attacks from the leaders of the national union (the IBT).
- Attacks from the Communist Party itself (as being sell-outs of the workers).
- Physical (and deadly) assault from goon squads organised by the employers and the city police.
- Arrest and incarceration at the hands of the National Guard.
It was the response of the CLA and Local 574’s leadership to these, and many other, challenges that was to characterise these struggles as something new in US politics.
The very first challenge posed was winning a majority within the executive board of Local 574 for a unionisation drive. This was achieved by the socialists forming a volunteer organising committee as a means of putting pressure on the executive. This was achieved with support from sympathetic individuals within the Board. With the support of a few key individuals within the Board, a majority was achieved and a unionisation drive was launched and meetings organized with workers to draw up initial demand on the employers.
Strikes One and Two
There were three strikers organised by Local 574 in 1934. The first in winter (February 7th-10th), called “the opening wedge” by Dobbs, hit the coal employers by surprise, achieved a swift victory and boosted the confidence of workers.
The second strike, which lasted 10 days, followed an unprecedented three-month period of intense preparation by the Local.
Firstly the volunteer committee was upgraded to the status of an official body of the Local.
Then the organising committee began to take in members from all sectors of the trucking industry, breaking the IBT norms of confining members to truck drivers and helpers only; representing a shift from being a narrow craft to being a broader industrial form of organisation.
Combined with democratically conducted mass meeting, which helped to integrate new members and establish rank and file control, these actions allowed militant workers to come forward and strengthen the work of the committee and gave more and more authority to the organising committee in the eyes of the workers.
As part of the preparation the union reached out to get formal support from the Central Labor Union (the equivalent of the Trades Council for the city) and get Governor Olson on record as supporting strike, something that was essential to building the broadest possible support for the strike.
Who was Governor Olson?
Olson, the Farmer Labor Party and AFL Officialdom
In politics, working people in Minnesota tended to support the Farmer Labour Party (a state-wide movement based upon an alliance of trade unions and farmers’ organisations). Nationally the FLP supported the “New Deal” policies of incumbent Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
But in Minnesota, it contended for public office against both Democrats and Republicans. Its political strength was reflected in the election in 1930 and again in 1932 of Floyd B. Olsen, the FLP candidate for governor.
Olson’s key aim was to advance his personal political career. His performance in public office fell way short of the hopes and expectations of workers who had elected him.
The AFL labour officialdom in Minnesota was faced by a local ruling class that was virulently anti-union. The most powerful and wealthiest capitalists were organised into an organisation called the Citizens Alliance.
In the face of these challenges, AFL officials looked to Governor Olson for leadership and protection.
The CLA’s policy, and the one carried out by the Local 574, was one of reaching out to the members of the FLP to put pressure on Olson and to get him on record as politically supporting the working class.
This, they did, in order to make it more difficult for him to block the union at a later date.
So, when the strike began on May 16th the union put in place:
- A strike committee of 100 with broad representation from the striking firms.
- A fully functioning HQ, which contained kitchen facilities for feeding the strikers, an improvised hospital and a repair shop to service cars used by cruising picket squads.
- Picketing teams, which has been planned in advance and which were organised militantly and effectively under the direct leadership picket captains from the strike committee.
- A women’s auxiliary to build support in the wider community.
- They were also able to establish agreements with farm organisations, which were designed to avoid conflicts and undermined the ability of the employers to so division amongst the strikers.
- Likewise, they took the lead in organising the unemployed into a union auxiliary known as the Federal Workers Section. They championed the struggles of jobless workers in their fights with the authorities for improved relief payments. In so doing solidifying unity.
The response of the Citizens Alliance was to get the cooperation of the Mayor and the police, along with the recruitment of special deputies, to break the strike.
Street battles were waged between strikers and deputies who posed the issue of self-defence. The street fighting, militantly organised by the union, ensured the non-movement of scab trucks and sealed victory for the strike.
What was won? - Olson intervened
Principally: the extension of union recognition with further pay rises to be decided in negotiations after the strike.
The Citizens Alliance immediate set to work to undermine the agreement through victimisation of union members and ignoring the settlement provisions. It was clear to the CLA and the Union that the employers were laying the basis for a new conflict.
Strike Three
The third strike began two months later and lasted almost five weeks.
It was characterised by increased reliance by the employers on the repressive apparatus of the local state and by attacks from the IBT leadership in Washington on the local leadership.
In response, Dobbs explains, the class struggle leaders took the new step of creating an official union newsletter, The Organizer, which was to appear daily during the next strike. It enabled the militants to reach out to all the workers, mobilize their support and counter the boss’s propaganda. The CLA provided journalistic support in the form of a couple of central leaders including JP Cannon.
The attacks on the union leaders by the IBT provoked outrage amongst the rank and file. Dobbs explains that the democratic nature of how the local conducted its affairs; and the recognition that the socialists had proven themselves, in battle, as competent and effective class struggle fighters with clear sighted leadership, lead many union members to see the attacks as an attack on the union membership as a whole.
The question of self-defence was again sharply posed following the killing on July 20th of two strikers following mass picketing, but this time in a different manner.
The police action had generated sympathy for the strikers through broad sections of society, including the middle class. The union called for a one-day strike of all transportation unions as a protest against the violence.
In the meantime, members of the union were arming themselves with weapons, such as shotguns, revolvers, hunting knives and “… various types of souvenirs from World War I!” The local leadership immediately moved to disarm the members.
It would have been a grave mistake to physically confront the police, thus provided a pretext for severe repression against the strikers.
A settlement proposed by mediators called for recognition of the union wherever it could win a representation election conducted by the Labor Board. On wages, the unions wage rate demands were rejected and reduced by the mediators.
Governor Olson endorsed the proposal and called on both the union and employers to accept it. If not he would impose a strike settlement and declare martial law.
Face with a difficult decision, the leadership of Local 574 recommended acceptance (not without some opposition) of the deal.
However, the employers rejected it!
Martial Law and the end of the strike
On July 26th Olson put the city under martial law; the Local reacted by preparing to resume mass pickets. Olson ordered the troops to seize the strike headquarters and arrest the union leaders. Then, hand in hand with the conservative AFL officialdom, tried to induce the “headless” union to call off the strike.
The reaction amongst the working class of the city was swift. Mass picketing was resumed and broad support for strikers in all sections of society, and in particular pressure from the ranks of the Farmer Labor Party, forced the release of the union leaders.
The fight became a war of attrition, which ended on August 21st when new mediators proposed a settlement that would allow a Labor Board election to determine union recognition and a decision on wages to be made through arbitration.
Conclusion
Basic to the whole struggle has been the winning of union recognition. With that accomplished, Dobbs explains, any lag on other matters would be only limited and temporary. Now firmly established in the industry, the union was in a position to make steady advances.
“On balance, the workers had won a sweeping victory and Local 574 had emerged from the struggle as a major power in the Minnesota labor movement” - Dobbs.
As Dobbs put it in the afterword to the last volume of his Teamster series, Teamster Bureaucracy, the accomplishments of the rank and file militants who made Minneapolis a union town in the mid-1930’s “were made possible through the interplay of two basic factors. One of these was the skilful and considerate leadership of the workers by revolutionary socialists. The other was our championing of trade union democracy. Full membership participation was encouraged in the organization’s internal affairs. Freedom to express all points of view was upheld, as was the workers’ right to set policy by majority vote.”
Afterword
In March 1935 IBT president, Daniel Tobin, expelled Local 574 from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. However, in August 1936 Tobin was forced to relent and recharter the Local as 544. The leaders of 544 went on to develop the area and conference bargaining that exists today in the IBT.
Local 544 remained under socialist leadership until 1941, when eighteen leaders of the union and the Socialist Workers Party (the successor to the Communist League of America) were sentenced to a federal prison, the first victims of the anti-radical Smith Act, a law eventually found by the United States Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.
Farrell Dobbs would eventually become SWP national secretary in 1953, a role he held until 1972. His historical memoirs of the Minneapolis struggles are recounted in the four volume Teamster series - Teamster Rebellion, Teamster Power, Teamster Politics and Teamster Bureaucracy
(Dobbs with Trotsky, 1940)
