UNIONS EXPAND AS NATION RECOVERS

At the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the exhausted 46-year-old Reuben was diagnosed with amebic dysentery. An immediate treatment of amantadine hydrochloride most likely saved his life, but the entire experience left him weak and exhausted. From Rochester he sent postcards to his son Carl and daughter Jeanne back in Streator; it would take him months to soldier on to recovery.

In early 1934, the country too found itself on the mend. Employment in January was up 18.6% over the previous year, and the manufacturing sector saw payrolls increase by 42%.[1] Of course, the American economic situation was far from healthy; the 1% gain in buying power experienced nationally was offset by a 3% rise in cost of living.[2] But the picture was improving, and many credited Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act.

Reuben was no exception. Although he thought the Act far from perfect—he believed its codes to be largely written by business for their own benefit—he hailed the NIRA a great accomplishment, particularly for its hotly contested section 7(a), which guaranteed laborers the “right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,” a right they began to exercise in record numbers.[3] In the words of historian Joseph Rayback:

Long-dormant unions quickened into life, forming new locals and invading territory in which they had previously regarded themselves as trespassers. While the impulse sometimes came from AFL headquarters, more often rank and file laborers began activity themselves, forming their own locals and then applying for charters. One-third of the federation unions increased their rolls; one-fourth doubled their membership…So spectacular was the expansion of unionism in the months that followed the adoption of the NRA that William Green could announce in October of 1933 that the AFL’s goal was ten million members.[4]

Soderstrom firmly held that it was this growth in organized labor, made possible by the NIRA, which was responsible for the newfound signs of economic strength. This “union bloom,” he asserted, undercut the old argument that workers did not want unionism. As he argued in the fall of that year:

The National Industrial Recovery Act…has made heavy contributions towards bringing working people into trade unions. Organization is spreading among working people with tremendous rapidity. Since a year ago the American Federation of Labor has gained 2,000,000 members. That means some 5,000 people a day on average have joined the labor movement of our country—and that is no small achievement.

There has been no wartime stimulation, there has been no hope for at once gaining increased wages, there has been none of the enthusiasm that marked the days of wartime elation. Today’s great labor growth is due to the simple reason that the National Recovery Act makes it possible for a man to join a union without losing his job. What we have before us, I think, is a magnificent example of the age-long assertion of labor, that men want to join the unions if they are left free to do so. Every man of labor, and every woman who toils, has heard many repetitions of the old slander that “men join the unions because they have to do so in order to get a job.” Now we have the proof, piled mountain-high, that men join unions for the sake of associating themselves with their fellows in a common effort in behalf of the wage earners…Upon the enactment of the very simple law which says that no employer shall have the right to interfere with the right of the employee to join a union and to engage through that union in collective bargaining, men rushed by thousands to join unions, and this at a time when money, even for small initiations, is hard to get.[5]

LABOR FIGHTS FOR REFORM

Illinois Manufacturers Declare War

Not all shared Reuben’s enthusiasm for organized labor’s newfound strength. The Illinois Manufacturers’ Association initially voiced optimism; IMA President RE Wantz told the press in January “Business of most of the members of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association improved to an encouraging extent during 1933. There is evidence that it will be still better in 1934.”[6] Still, it wasn’t long before the IMA turned against FDR and his New Deal. Unable to undo NIRA in Congress, the organization and its lawyers instead adopted a different course. In a letter to his membership, IMA Vice President Donnelly and legal counsel David Clarke advised their membership to openly violate the Act. Instead of negotiating with ISFL-recognized unions, he said, owners should “decide finally and definitely that you are going to run your own plant” by signing individual contracts or creating an owner-friendly “company unions” to negotiate with.[7] Of course, this went squarely against NIRA, which explicitly allowed workers—not owners—to choose their representatives. Donnelly, however, dismissed this right as “illegal and not enforceable.”[8]

Wantz soon took the IMA’s approach across the country, personally spearheading a national campaign to ignore the Act, which he sneeringly referred to as a “governmental invasion of private industry.”[9] Soon, a war broke out between noncompliant businesses and labor in the form of mass strikes and lockouts. Before long, a full 15% of the country’s labor force was involved in industrial conflict.[10] The stakes couldn’t have been higher, with the fate of the NIRA—particularly section 7A—hanging in the balance. “Necessary for permanent improvement in business is the repeal of the infamous section 7A of the NRA, which has incited widespread labor strife,” charged IMA President Wantz. “American manufacturers and business men have their eyes on the federal administration at Washington hoping for some signs of a policy that will enable them to go ahead upon something like a normal basis.”[11] Soderstrom punched back, laying the blame for the chaos squarely at the IMA’s feet, declaring “What is causing unrest, upheavals and strikes more than anything else, in my judgment, is the utter disregard that some employers have for the proper enforcement of the codes that they themselves created. Strikes will stop and a complete stabilization of industry will come when these employers begin to live up to the law and live up to their own codes.”[12]

The fight worked towards the manufacturers’ advantage. After all, the penalty for noncompliance was social, not criminal. At worst, a business could lose its “Blue Eagle” (the symbol which showed a business was in compliance with the codes), which only mattered if people were willing to boycott businesses in violation. By prolonging the unpopular struggle, Wantz, Donnelly, and the IMA hoped to sour the general public on the NIRA—and the government—making it appear weak, ineffective and ultimately useless. Of course, such tactics carried huge risks for the state and the nation; if they won, the IMA could damage not only Reuben’s ISFL, but the force of law itself.

Unfortunately, the federal authorities of the National Recovery Administration could do little. The Supreme Court at the time held that regulation of commerce was largely a state matter. The best they could do was to plead for state legislators to pass bills “equipped with teeth to ensure compliance with code agreements and restrictions.”[13] It wasn’t long before Reuben answered the call, fighting to pass the Illinois Industrial Recovery Act.

Soderstrom Stands With FDR

In February 1934, Governor Horner called for a series of special sessions of the Illinois legislature to help combat employers’ abuse of the NIRA. Ostensibly, the new sessions were called to deal with a host of issues ranging from tax bonds to the possible hosting of a 1934 World Fair. However, it wasn’t long before most of the Assembly’s time and effort was focused on a single piece of legislation—Illinois’ corollary to the NIRA, the State Industrial Recovery Act (SIRA). The bill, introduced by Democratic majority leader Thomas Sinnett, would give the state the power to enforce the NIRA in Illinois and punish firms that violated it.

Reuben immediately joined the fight to ensure that working men and women received the benefits and protections of NIRA. In an essay entitled “N.R.A. State Legislation Necessary,” he excoriated the hypocrisy of special interests like the IMA, which sought to deny workers the rights and governmental resources that they enjoyed. As he wrote:

Business willingly accepted the aid of government in bringing about through the several codes what is undoubtedly the most effective and widespread organization of business groups ever contemplated in this or any other county. This having been accomplished, they now seek to prevent any extension of organization among the working people and also to prevent the enactment of laws that will make illegal some of the vicious commercial practices which have in the past contributed to the misery of the country…

In 1930 they grudgingly consented to the extension of an utterly inadequate private charity system as a means of combating the national hunger problem which was then rapidly becoming acute. They opposed the use of even local public funds for relief purposes. Later, as the situation grew worse, they objected to the use of state funds, yielding only after it became plainly evident that the state action was inevitable whether they like it or not. Afterwards they appeared before committees of the United States Congress fighting against the use of federal funds for relief purposes.

They have been merciless in this respect.

However, they readily agreed to the formation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation designed for their own protection. They raised no question of constitutionalism when an Executive order declared a bank moratorium throughout the United States, because they benefitted thereby. They have sought and obtained relief for themselves, taking the position that bread should not be permitted to reach the mouths of the starving masses except through the medium of business enterprises which would profit thereby…[14]

Soderstrom increasingly viewed business interests as rabidly anti-Roosevelt, reflexively opposing any legislation or order. “The business elements now engage in a campaign against the leadership of the President of the United States in the present emergency,” he wrote. “With few exceptions, their leaders have been opposed to practically every step taken by the Roosevelt administration for the relief of the common people of the nation.”[15] In response, Reuben rallied organized labor behind the President. On April 29, 1934, he delivered the keynote address at Labor’s Economic Conference in Chicago. Speaking in the Ashland Auditorium before 2,500 delegates from 635 local unions, Soderstrom called for a general declaration of support putting Illinois labor “on the record in unmistakable terms in support of the policies of President Roosevelt” with the intention that “echoes of the great meeting will be heard throughout the land.”[16] By a near unanimous vote, those gathered adopted a general declaration which read in part:

We repeat, with emphasis, the words of the President, “The National Recovery Act was drawn with the greatest good of the greatest number in mind.” That expresses not only the opinion of the Chief Executive, but the intent of the Congress of the United States…In this emergency, grave in its consequences as the most desperate of wars, the nation sought a new leader and called for a new deal. The man of the hour proved to be Franklin D. Roosevelt, a man of strength, courage and decisive action, yet kindly to the point of tenderness in his sympathetic attitude towards the problems of the masses of people.

Almost within the hour of his inauguration as the President of our great country, indeed at the very moment, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firm hand grasped the helm of the Ship of State, he gave the first command that eased tension and calmed the wave of fear then surging over the land.[17]

As he had done when urging passage of the State Recovery Act, Reuben again impugned the motivations of those attacking the President:

What is the purpose of the assault? Clearly, it must be this, that having used the Recovery Program to enhance their own interests, they now seek to prevent its extension to others…In the name of liberty, constitutionalism and fundamental Americanism, they are deliberately and consciously, indeed, it may be said even maliciously, seeking to maintain, for what they conceive to be their own benefit, a condition of inequality as between the legal rights and economic opportunities of those who own and manage commerce and industry, as against the great masses of the people who perform the labor, without which owners and managers are helpless.[18]

With labor’s support of FDR and its opposition to his detractors firmly and unambiguously stated, Reub returned to the halls of the General Assembly to fight for passage of the SIRA, whatever the cost.

Recovery Act Passed Over Republican Opposition

The following days were filled with tension as Governor Horner and the Democrats struggled to pass the Recovery Act. Republicans had suffered greatly in the last two elections; in 1930 they lost control of the Senate, House, and Governorship for the first time in a generation, and fared even worse in 1932. These losses had not softened the Party to the policies of the Democrats, however. They in fact had the opposite effect, turning those who remained into a more ideologically rigid “wall of opposition.” That wall was on full display in late April as Republican legislators, lacking the strength to kill the Recovery Act, still managed to stall its passage. While avoiding any personal attacks on the still-popular President, Republican leadership whipped its members into line, concentrating fire on the NIRA. Attacks ranged from traditional laissez-faire to the downright hyperbolic, with some claiming that passage of the bill would mean “the end of representative government.”[19]

Despite this opposition, by the first week of May the proposed Act had secured 75 of the 77 votes it needed to pass. As Horner and Reub searched for votes, they found four legislators privately confessing that they would vote for the bill, but none of them wanted to go first.[20] After additional pressure, including Reuben’s arrangement of a personal appeal from NRA Administrator Brig. Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, the bill passed in the closing hours of the special session.[21] The level of partisanship throughout the fight was unprecedented; as Victor Olander later described:

The passage of the act through the Legislature was one of the most difficult undertakings we have been confronted with in the legislative field. The whole matter was made the subject of a political cleavage that was very acute, the Democrats on one side and the Republicans on the other, with the respective leaders making a party issue out of whether there should or should not be a State Recovery Act.[22]

Of all the Republicans in the House, only Soderstrom voted in support of the measure. The Republican leadership was furious, labeling him in the press as a “lame duck,” someone who was unable to keep with the flock (as opposed to the modern meaning of legislators still in office after their final election).[23] They vowed revenge, but for the moment were impotent; the primaries had already passed, and Reub was selected as one of the two Republicans running for the three House seats in the 39th District. But the Illinois Republicans were already planning their revenge for 1936.

BRAVELY ONWARD

Roosevelt Takes Action

As Reuben worked for solutions to enforce the NIRA in Illinois, Roosevelt took action to improve implementation nationally. On June 29, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6763, replacing the National Labor Board with the National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB, which endures to this day). Despite their similar name, the bodies differed greatly in terms of makeup and authority. The new NLRB, a three-member panel chaired by University of Wisconsin Law School Dean Lloyd Garrison, was given the authority to issue subpoenas, mediate labor disputes, and hold union elections, all of which would allow direct confrontation of the company unions. Referencing the section of the NIRA that governed labor protections, the new board made clear that, “In cases arising under Section 7(a), it is not enough that the decision be just. It must also be prompt. The rights created by Section 7(a) cannot more effectively be destroyed than by delay in hearing the cases, delay in deciding them, and delay in enforcing the decisions."[24] The NLRB immediately began picking up where the NLB left off, working to ensure that workers were protected. The board soon ran into the same obstacles as its predecessors, however. As historian Rayback writes:

The new board, made up of ‘experts’ was no more successful. Although its principles were somewhat more severe—it ruled that company unions were not proper bargaining agents—it, likewise, had no power to enforce its decisions. In some ways its task was more difficult since by the summer of 1934, industry, beginning to see its way out of the depression, was becoming more truculent. It flatly defied the NLRB decisions and began a strong campaign to roll back the union tide through careful discrimination in the hiring and firing of its labor.[25]

What Roosevelt was unable to accomplish through boards and executive action he attempted to accomplish through persuasion. In his series of fireside chats, Roosevelt appealed directly to the American public, making the case that:

The primary concern of any government dominated by the humane ideals of democracy is the simple principle that in a land of vast resources no one should be permitted to starve… from the paralysis that arose as the after-effect of that unfortunate decade characterized by a mad chase for unearned riches and an unwillingness of leaders in almost every walk of life to look beyond their own schemes and speculations. It is well for us to remember that humanity is a long way from being perfect and that a selfish minority in every walk of life… will always continue to think of themselves first and their fellow-being second.[26]

Labor’s Army

A major component of FDR’s New Deal was public-funded work. “To those who say that our expenditures for Public Works and other means of recovery are a waste that we cannot afford,” he challenged, “I answer that no country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources.”[27] Roosevelt initially created the Civilian Works Administration to provide work for able-bodied men, and by the start of 1934 over 4 million men were set to work on CWA projects, repairing roads and streets, rebuilding schools, and raising new parks, pools and other public works.[28] The program aimed to assist families on relief, as the worker kept only $5 of his monthly pay of $30 with the remaining $25 sent home to his family. The workers lived an austere lifestyle, waking up at 6:00 a.m. followed by 15 minutes to wash and prepare for roll call before breakfast. After basic-training style group exercises, the men then worked through the afternoon with only a brief break for lunch, returning to camp for dinner and camp activities such as boxing matches until lights out at 10:00 p.m. Families who had endured unemployment, poverty and hunger welcomed the opportunity to send a son to work in the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) camps.[29]

The martial style of the CCC was no accident; it was intentional. General Hugh Johnson, head of the NRA, saw a clear connection between his work and the training of an army—a connection he made explicit to Soderstrom. In 1934 Reuben disclosed part of an earlier private meeting between himself, CFL President Fitzpatrick, AFL President Green, and the General. They were discussing an issue of great importance—the blatant violations of the National Recovery Act by the IMA and its members. How, Reuben asked, would the federal government enforce the NIRA? In response, the General appeared ready to use his new army to do more than build, telling Soderstrom:

There has been a revolution in Spain; they have chased the king out of that country and established a new form of government…A year ago they looked upon Hitler as an impossibility; that all sorts of schemes had been hatched to get rid of him, but in eight months he came back as the dictator of Germany. That created a great deal of fear in Europe, especially in England…with so many dictators on the other side it isn’t safe for the United States to be without military protection.

In Tennessee they have enlisted 250,000 men of military age, between 18 and 25, not to bear arms but to plant trees and reclaim land, but at the same time they would go through military drills and physical drills, and that is the nucleus of an army. This country is on a wartime basis; the President has wartime powers, he can proclaim martial laws whenever he wants to, and he can use that army in Illinois to enforce the Recovery Act. You go back to Illinois and be sure that this industrial program is going to work.[30]

Ultimately, FDR did not use this “labor army” to enforce the Recovery Act, and Johnson himself resigned in 1934. But as the General predicted, the training and discipline these young men gained did help prepare them for another, far deadlier struggle—one that would see labor and business unite to defeat the most existential threat either would ever face.

“Let’s Be Bold!”

Like many in the labor movement, Reuben echoed Roosevelt’s call for work over relief. He mourned the plight of unemployed workers; as he said in a speech before labor delegates in Peoria at the 1934 ISFL convention:

Throughout this entire depression the breadwinners of union families have been compelled to walk the streets for weeks and for months, seeking employment without finding it. Pregnant mothers in trade union families have been compelled to face the coming event without a penny in the family pocketbook, with starvation as a constant companion.[31]

While measures like unemployment insurance helped ease the pain, Reuben believed the only permanent solution lay in securing meaningful work for those hit by the depression. As a legislator Reub worked hard to bring work relief funds back home. After the Public Works Administration initially rejected Streator’s request for $825,000 for a new sewer system, Reuben worked to secure the necessary funds elsewhere.[32] He pushed a Sewer Bond through the special session of the Illinois General Assembly, enabling municipalities to “turn over its paper to the Public Works Administration, and in return they will be given cash for building projects…to create employment for building trades workers throughout the state.”[33]

Soderstrom didn’t stop there, however. He called for new legislation that he believed would end the scourge of unemployment—the shared work week:

Sustaining employment must come. I think we would be better off if we had all our people working half-time than to have half of them working full time and the other half not working at all…What shall we do to solve this vexing problem of unemployment, where half the workers are still idle? I think organized labor ought to be willing to advocate that in such places those who are working now should work three days a week and then put on an entirely new force the other three days and this provide for all.[34]

Reuben knew this idea would be controversial, not only among businessmen but among those laborers lucky enough to have work. He was, after all, asking them to sacrifice their own security (and their earnings) for the sake of their brother laborer. Soderstrom did not back down, however, instead encouraging his audience:

Do not be afraid of this suggestion. The first thing, in my judgment, is to get everybody back to work. After that has been done, start a real agitation for more money. It would be only a short period of time, after everybody has returned to work, before we would get four days’ pay for three days’ labor. Perhaps by the end of the year we would be able to get the more prosperous firms to pay five days’ wages for three days’ work.

When I first attended labor meetings in my town, some twenty-five years ago, the American Federation of Labor had a slogan: “The shorter hours bring larger pay.” Of course that may mean a temporary sacrifice for those who are working five and six days a week now, but there is such a thing as getting a dime so close to your eye that you cannot see the dollar behind…

Real wages will come to those who are bold. We have the physical strength and intelligence to produce wealth for employers. Let’s do something for ourselves.[35]

Reuben’s confidence as a leader grew with his increasing membership rolls. In his Labor Day speech in Alton, he addressed his supporters at City Hall, where he called for them to push harder with the opportunity Roosevelt had given them with the NIRA. He spoke with energy and excitement until he could barely be heard over the applause and ended his speech with, “Let’s be bold!”[36]

Striking Against Communism

Reuben and the AFL weren’t the only ones seeking to make use of the protections offered under the Act. Other groups, many with communist sympathies, were also busy organizing workers. Secretive and antagonistic, groups like the “Council of Unemployed” and the “Illinois Workers Alliance” sought to supplant the Federation as the official representative of workers in discussions with the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission, Civil Works Administration, and Public Works Administration. In an effort to gain members, many of these groups touted lower (or even nonexistent) initiation fees or dues.[37]

The AFL believed these groups and others like them to be under Soviet control, and quickly equated their attacks on the Federation with Communist assaults on American principles. By September of that year the AFL had declared war on “Reds,” promising an “aggressive fight on Communism rather than mere resistance to attacks.”[38] Reuben used the opportunity of his published Labor Day Address to take on the issue directly:

Forces of evil...[who] with a good deal of sarcasm refer to the trade unionist, the doctor, the educator, the small business man, the farmer, and those who wore the uniform of the United States as the 'bourgeois'--a word just as foreign as their twisted ideals...be mighty wary of these alien radicals.

We are striving for brotherhood--human brotherhood--but it must be the American variety where each and every person can arise to any position that his merits entitle him to arise to, unhampered and free of any class distinction. This is America. Labor Day is not May Day, and the labor movement is just as distinctly American as is the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States.

No worker can be neutral on the question of American or foreign ideals. The American variety has been crystallized by the thought and struggle of the membership of the movement of the workers and represents the hopes and aspirations of humanity for a better day. The foreign variety was born in cellars and garrets of backward nations where unfortunate peoples could find no relief, no avenue of expression except by revolution...Choose! Which shall it be—America or Russia? Ringing loud and clear from every corner of the nation comes the answer:

‘Labor Day in September And A.F. of L. philosophy tender Wage-earners will remember With reverence Divine. No foreign romance of brotherhood Jumbled, flimsy and no good Will be sufficiently misunderstood To change that day to 'wobbly May' Or any other time!"[39]

REUBEN SURVIVES ELECTORAL CHALLENGE

The effects of the NIRA special session clearly impacted Reuben’s standing within his own party. He not only broke ranks with Republicans, but led the largely Democratic charge to institute FDR’s policies at the state level. As a result, Reub received fewer votes than any other candidate who won a primary that year.[40] His survival as an elected official in a Republican district began to show some cracks, even though he was the most publicly visible candidate of all due to his dual role as ISFL president. As a result, Democrats took the unusual step of fielding a second candidate, which created a four-man race for the three open seats available under Illinois’ minority representation system.[41] Worried that his constituents could be lulled into a false sense of security, Reuben worked hard to sound the alarm; as he wrote in his election campaign flyer:

Some supporters of R.G. Soderstrom are being solicited to vote for a certain candidate on the argument that, ‘Reub Soderstrom doesn’t need your vote. He will be elected anyway.’ Don’t be misled—over-confidence has defeated many candidates! R.G. Soderstrom cannot be elected without your vote. YOU MUST VOTE FOR HIM![42]

After squeaking through his party primary, Reuben cast a wider net for himself as a nonpartisan representative who would appeal to the general electorate. Speaking in Alton, Soderstrom described the State Recovery Act “not as a Democratic political measure, but a government agency designed to be used in the war on depression."[43] At the Annual ISFL Convention that year Bishop Joseph H. Schlarman, keenly aware of Reuben’s predicament as a Republican who was very publicly supporting a Democratic president, said:

I am glad to be here for many reasons. One is I have the opportunity of meeting my old friend Mr. Soderstrom. I don’t know to what political party he belongs, but I do know he is keenly interested in the welfare of the people over in Streator and LaSalle County… anything that comes along in any way concerning the interests of the people he is right there. I understand they are going to elect him as permanent representative in Springfield.[44]

It was an incredibly close vote. Immediately following November’s election day of 1934, several newspapers declared that Reuben had lost before later correcting themselves.[45] Reuben had in fact won again, joining Ole Benson again as the other Republican representative from District 39, as well as newcomer Edward Hayne, a Democrat. Reub would be heading back to Springfield as both the ISFL president and statehouse representative, where his support for the New Deal was unwavering…and the Republican target on his back growing larger.

* * *