This is a good article with two glaring omissions. One is that SWOC only succeeded after the Rubber and Auto workers' sit-down successes. SWOC was a top down undemocratic organization. the investment by Lewis and the CIO was good, but not the only crucial element. The role of the left in rubber and auto was also crucial. Second, past fai…
This is a good article with two glaring omissions. One is that SWOC only succeeded after the Rubber and Auto workers' sit-down successes. SWOC was a top down undemocratic organization. the investment by Lewis and the CIO was good, but not the only crucial element. The role of the left in rubber and auto was also crucial. Second, past failures in steel were largely (not totally of course) the result of successful union busting using Black workers who had been kept out of most jobs in the mills in the past. Again, thanks for a provocative and stimulating article.
This was not meant to be a full history of the CIO, just to illustrate the SCALE that an industry organizing effort was launched with back then, versus today.
This is a good article with two glaring omissions. One is that SWOC only succeeded after the Rubber and Auto workers' sit-down successes. SWOC was a top down undemocratic organization. the investment by Lewis and the CIO was good, but not the only crucial element. The role of the left in rubber and auto was also crucial. Second, past failures in steel were largely (not totally of course) the result of successful union busting using Black workers who had been kept out of most jobs in the mills in the past. Again, thanks for a provocative and stimulating article.
This was not meant to be a full history of the CIO, just to illustrate the SCALE that an industry organizing effort was launched with back then, versus today.