LABOR AT THE READY

It was a rough-and-tumble year. From the very beginning, Reuben could tell 1941 was going to be an uphill battle. At home and abroad, sinister and self-interested forces were actively working to undermine the institutions, protections, and causes that Reub held most dear. Despite professional and increasingly personal threats, Soderstrom held the line against all comers, from foreign Fascists and Nazis to local gangsters and racketeers. He also came out swinging against those who could or should have been allies, including labor leaders in the CIO and even the new Governor, Dwight Green.

To be sure, he made mistakes. Reuben’s actions in the early months of 1941 were meant to show that he would not be cowed. His pugnacious politics, however, also cost him allies and at times landed him in fights that undermined him. His fierce protection of union rights also led him to oppose legislation his own beliefs and principles might otherwise have led him to embrace.

Yet through all the tumultuous fighting of 1941, Reuben never wavered in his support of working men and women across the world. He took meaningful action on both state and national stages that would impact how the country and organized labor approached the conflict creeping ever closer to American shores. He strengthened Illinois labor, and, with his close confidant Victor Olander, was the only official of note to win concrete gains for working men and women in the state. While other officers and politicians relied on self-serving rhetoric and bombast, Reuben used works, not words, as his measure of success.

FIGHTING RAGES OVERSEAS

The Nazi War on Unions

As 1940 wound to a close, the war abroad pressed closer to home. It became clear to all that this was not a mere war for dominance between the Great Powers, as the last World War had been. This was a fight of principle, an assault on democratic governments and institutions of freedom by forces determined to impose an ideology of totalitarian rule. As the AFL’s Committee on International Relations reported, “With a totalitarian revolution sweeping the world, with the very foundations of our western civilization threatened by irresponsible military dictatorship seeking to dominate the world by the strategy of terror and ruthless force, mankind faces its most critical hour since the fall of Rome. Barbarism is again on the march!”[1]

This war on liberty and equality was waged on many fronts, including labor. Hitler was as committed to the destruction of organized labor as he was to the extermination of all “non-Germanic” colors, creeds, and peoples. One of the first actions the Nazis took upon occupying a fallen country was to suppress its unions. From Czechoslovakia to Luxembourg, Nazi occupiers outlawed unions of any meaningful size, confiscating their property. Their leaders were sent to concentration camps or murdered outright. By the start of 1941, France’s General Federation of Labor, the last major continental free trade union, was dissolved by the puppet Petain government. The General Federation’s destruction left only the American Federation of Labor, Congress of Industrial Organization, and the British Trade Union Congress unbroken by Hitler.

While the United Kingdom persevered in its fight against Nazism, it continued to appeal to the democracies of the world—particularly America—to fund the fight, at minimum, out of both principle and self-interest. As Earns Bevin, the British Minister of Labor, wrote in a desperate appeal to the democracies of the world:

The present struggle for the maintenance of democracy and the right to use reason as against force in the conduct of human affairs should not have to be borne by one nation or commonwealth. It involves the fundamental rights and liberties to the human being, and all who accept these principles as their way of life should rally to the fullest possible extent in support of those who are actually in the battleline. The future progress of labor absolutely depends upon the success of the British arms…My message would be, therefore, to every lover of liberty throughout the world: pour in your arms, your money, your effort to support those who willingly risk their lives to preserve the soul of mankind.[2]

Defense Spending Brings Labor Boom

America heeded the call. In his December 1940 fireside chat the President promised that America would “be the great arsenal of democracy,” and by 1941 Roosevelt’s National Defense Program had turned billions of defense dollars into millions of jobs, with more on the way. In Illinois alone, the State Employment Service reported an employment increase of 20% over the previous year. While the report credited some of the rise to increased awareness of the department and its services, it conceded that “The largest percentage of increase occurred after the beginning of the National Defense Program. An almost immediate demand for skilled workers, especially in the metal trades, became apparent when the defense industries began to get underway.”[3]

Of course, an increased demand for skilled labor meant a greater need for training and education. Defense vocational schools were opened across the nation to prepare workers to build for war. U.S. Commissioner of Education John Studebaker estimated that over 1,000,000 workers would be trained by the summer of 1941. The popularity and success of these programs was the result of patriotism as much as opportunity; as Studebaker reported to Federal Security Administrator Paul McNutt:

In this far-reaching program millions of people in thousands of local communities of every state are working with heightened morale because they are actual participants in a great national effort…Patriotic American school boards have joined patriotic American citizens in general in putting both school buildings and personnel at the service of the nation.[4]

The burgeoning defense workforce also created a sudden need for housing. By the early spring congress had already approved over $6.7 million for temporary housing at industrial centers and power plants.[5] Both in Illinois and across the country, the engines of war powered the American recovery.

Like many groups and institutions across the nation, organized labor called for cooperation and sacrifice at this critical American moment. Although the American Federation of Labor continued to oppose direct US involvement, they did support the National Defense Program, and called on all members to avoid strikes in matters of national defense. In January of 1941, the AFL released a legislative recommendation that read in part:

America is at peace. We believe with President Roosevelt that the best guarantee of America’s future peace is the prompt construction of an invincible national defense, together with the extension of every aid short of war to those democratic nations which have been attacked by aggressor totalitarianism in any form—whether it be Nazi, Fascist, or Communist...The American Federation of Labor will act-and has already acted-voluntarily, as a matter of patriotic policy, to avoid and abjure strikes in order not to impede defense production.[6]

Unions also gave what little they had for the cause. In testimony to the US Congressional Tolan Committee, AFL President Green noted that labor built many Army cantonments—military quarters that were “virtually cities in themselves”—was “furnished by the unions affiliated with our Building and Construction Trades Department without any (extra) cost to the Government or contractors.[7]” As Green noted, union labor worked on these projects without taking double-time, and additionally assumed a 7% voluntary pay cut. Similar contributions had also been made by the Metal Trades Department and the International Association of Machinists in the recruitment of men for work in Naval Yards, airplane plants, and the like.

REUBEN IN WARTIME

Soderstrom Gains New Appointments, Influence

While war production meant employment, no one, including Reuben, would hesitate to trade that growth for an end to the carnage inching ever closer to American shores. Pouring over the national accounts and local reports spread across the old oak desk in his modest home in Streator, Reuben followed all these developments with a gnawing mix of anxiety and anger. Local papers were filled with terrifying speculation; headlines such as “Nazi Invasion of Ireland Expected Any Time,” “Nazis to March Into Bulgaria,” and “Air Invasion If Nazis Win Abroad Seen” ran on the front pages of Illinois papers in the first month of 1941 alone.[8] Like the majority of Americans, Reuben had become convinced that Great Britain was all that stood between the United States and Nazi aggression. Unlike most, however, Reuben was prepared to publicly commit the full resources of his federation to the fight. As he announced that year:

In this crucial time in the world’s history of the human race, men must take their side. No wage-earner can be neutral in this second world war…The Illinois State Federation of Labor is not neutral. I am glad to be able to announce to you that the executive board instructed the officers of the Illinois State Federation of Labor to take all of surplus money and invest it in National Defense bonds. Thirty thousand dollars’ worth of National defense bonds was bought by the Illinois State Federation of Labor…Organized Labor believes that our country’s best bet is to stay with England. If England wins we win. If England loses, we lose.[9]

Reuben’s announcement was ground-shaking; it was a huge buy, more than half of what the entire American Federation of Labor had purchased as a whole.[10] It was clear that the now established labor leader possessed both a political savvy and sincere patriotism that could be of use in Washington. Already, Reuben had been asked by US Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins to join a special committee tasked with reviewing proposed labor legislation.[11] As the year progressed the labor leader was also made a member of multiple national committees, particularly those dealing with health and safety. He also worked with the Department of Interior on their “Americans All – Immigrants All” committee.[12]

Soderstrom also served his state. In April, Governor Green appointed him to the Illinois State Defense Council, a body modeled after the Preparedness Board of the last World War.[13] As the head of the Council’s Human Resources and Skills division, Soderstrom chaired the Committee on Labor and served on the Committee for Coordination of Independent Groups and the Committee for National Defense Bonds.[14] He also served on the Development Council of Illinois, which focused on the advancement and promotion of state industrial, recreational, and industrial interests.[15]

In addition, Reuben served his brothers in labor through the American Federation. That summer Soderstrom was named State Chairman of the American Labor Committee to aid British Labor by AFL Vice President Matthew Woll. Reub was committed to the cause, starting a campaign to raise funds for blankets, clothing, bandages and medical supplies for Britain. As Reuben explained in interviews:

The campaign seeks to mobilize the entire labor movement in this country to come to the aid of its British fellow workers who are fighting so heroically for the defense of their homes, the independence of their country, and the survival of democracy throughout the world…Labor, counted among the worst victims of totalitarian oppression, regards the struggle against dictatorship a matter of life and death. Our aid to British labor may be regarded as part of the struggle against the fifth column and intolerance in this country. These have been the opening wedge used by totalitarians to destroy democracy in Europe, and we do not intend to allow them to develop here.[16]

Preparing for the Fight

While he agreed that strikes were to be avoided if at all possible, Reuben grew increasingly worried about efforts to undermine workers’ rights. He bristled at any allegation that labor was using the national crisis as an opportunity for personal gain. In an official message to organized labor in Illinois, Reuben reiterated labor’s support for the National Defense Program, writing:

The Executive Board of the Illinois State federation of Labor…is in full accord with the declaration of the President of the United States that there should be no unnecessary strikes. It is the opinion of the Board that strikes should be resorted to only after all other means of obtaining adjustment have been thoroughly tried and have failed…The board is confident that all (AFL unions) have a keen sense of their responsibility in relation to the present national emergency. This has been apparent for some time past, to such an extent that the number of strikes in which American Federation of Labor unions have been involved in this state has dwindled to the vanishing point. A.F. of L. members and activities are not hampering the defense production in any part of the state.[17]

Still, while supportive of the National Defense Program and voluntary sacrifice in its name, Reuben made clear that he and the ISFL would fight with every weapon at their disposal should someone attempt to take by fiat what union members were freely offering for freedom’s cause. In a March address, Reuben wrote of working Illinois men and women, numbering more than 3,000, ready to serve as an “army of workers.” This army, however, could not be a conscripted one:

The President has not asked for any sacrifice of either legal or moral rights. He has simply requested that such rights be exercised with due regard to the national interest…The American worker is first of all an American citizen. He does not lose an iota of his citizenship rights or duties or responsibilities when he enters the workshop…The workers in Illinois, as in all America, are free men and women. We shall continue to remind those whom we represent that the one great test of freedom is the performance of necessary duties without the application of compulsory law. It is a glorious fact that under the American flag compulsory service in industry and commerce is a forbidden thing. Thus speaks the Constitution![18]

Reuben didn’t stop there. He had an expansive vision for the role of labor in the governance of American industry, with unions treated as equal partners in an industrial democracy. In this and other speeches throughout the year, Reuben took on the role of a general talking to his troops. The enemy was lying in wait, and just as America could not be neutral in the fight overseas, Reuben was firm in his conviction that no worker could be neutral in the struggle for freedom and fair wages at home. As he told an audience of laborers at Kankakee that Labor Day:

I am proud to stand here in the presence of wage earners—in the presence of some of those whom this Nation is so largely indebted for all that it has been—for all that it is now—and all that it can hope to be…

The working man today who does not belong to the union, would be as helpless as a newborn babe were it not for the men around him who do belong to the union. A non-union man is a sort of grafter on the trade union movement, because he derives benefits for which he does not render and equivalent, and in a National crisis, such as we are in today, he is of no value at all. The man who joins the union does so for a noble purpose…

The American Labor Movement has accomplished more good for wage earners than any other movement, reform, or otherwise in America and the way to strengthen that movement—the way to strengthen industry—the way to strengthen America—the way to keep dictatorship out of America, is to give labor representation on the boards of control of all industrial corporations, and all retail and wholesale corporations, too![19]

1941 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

Manufacturers Exploit Impending War

1941 was a legislative year, and Reub was determined to make it a transformative one. He published an ambitious agenda that included increases in Unemployment Compensation and Workman’s Compensation, as well as Occupational Disease and Injury payouts. He called for the re-introduction of a Prevailing Rate of Wage Law (modified after the State Supreme court found the original unconstitutional) and the creation of a new law requiring employers under strike to give notice in employment ads, informing potential workers. Laws touching on everything from state insurance to strip mining to printing contracts were drafted—over 125 labor bills in total, according to the ISFL.[20]

Of all Reuben’s legislation, though, two proposals were given special attention. The first, the Anti-Kickback bill, sought to end the practice of forcing employees to “kick back” a portion of their wages as a way to get around minimum wage laws. These kickbacks could be crippling to Illinois workers; “In some instances wage-earners have been forced to ‘kick-back’ fifty per cent of their wages,” Reuben explained in a letter to local unions. “Honest contractors are unable to compete with this brand of competition, while working people are robbed of the fruits of their labor.”[21] Although the Anti-Kickback bill would face strong opposition, Reuben’s most ambitious piece of legislation was the Wage and Hour Bill. This law, modeled after the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, was designed to establish a minimum wage and maximum hours on intrastate business. If Reub’s bill passed, it would be the first state law of its kind, firmly establishing Illinois at the forefront of labor protection.

While Reub was working to secure Illinois for labor, others were planning to pull it back to its primitive past. Chief among these was Representative Bob Woodward of Chicago. In a move backed by the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, Woodward introduced a series of bills he claimed were “drafted by state officials upon the recommendation of the Federal-State Conference on Law Enforcement (FSCLE).”[22] Reuben had encountered the FSCLE’s “model legislation” earlier as a member of the US Labor Secretary’s review committee, and he was unimpressed. Seeking advice, he turned to his trusted counsel Victor Olander, who wrote back to Reuben that “I cannot believe that the United States Department of Justice is responsible for the drafting of these measures. Taken as a whole, they seem to be the work of persons rather inexperienced in national affairs.”[23]

Like the model legislation they were based on, Woodward’s bills claimed to be for support of the national defense, but were in reality anti-labor bills using the specter of war to undermine workers’ rights. His Anti-Sabotage Act was meant, in the words of Olander, “To prohibit strikes in plants and other places of employment having even the remotest connection with the supply of materials called for by the National Government in relation to the defense program.”[24] The Interstate Public Property Act, meanwhile, could be used to “permit private guards of corporations to be deputized as special policemen, designated as employees of the state, thus freeing the corporation from all liability for their acts.”[25]

Then came the real whammy. In addition to all these “national security” acts, Woodward sought to effectively end labor unions by requiring every Local to furnish a bond of $25,000—an impossible task. He also wanted to prohibit trade union representatives from participating in “any labor issue” unless and until they had been issued an ill-defined “license” by the State for one full year.[26] By the start of the legislative session, it was clear Reuben had a fierce fight ahead of him.

The odds weren’t stacked in Reub’s favor, however. Despite his best efforts, the Republicans, who’d demonstrated a resistance to pro-labor policies, had won control of the Illinois House and Senate. They had also taken the Governorship, with newcomer Dwight Green assuming the role of Illinois chief executive. Still, Reuben was optimistic, at least publicly. In press interviews Soderstrom repeatedly made the claim that “With the Republicans on probation and the Democrats fighting to regain control, both parties are wooing labor.”[27]

Reuben Leads Legislative Blitz

Privately, however, Reub wasn’t taking any chances. On the eve of the legislature’s first day in session, Soderstrom summoned over 30 labor representatives from across the state to a morning meeting at the Leland, Springfield’s “dealmaker hotel” and Reuben’s residence of choice when staying at the State capitol. Form Aurora to Decatur to Chicago, an “unusually large number of trade union representatives for this early in the legislative session” poured into the Leland’s Grand Ballroom, drinking coffee while sinking into their deep leather seats.[28]

Once all were assembled, Reub recited his plan. This was war, he told the assembly, and they were the crucial front line. This was not going to be their normal session of deal making and horse-trading, Reuben said. They were on their heels, with a Republican Assembly and a Republican Governor. Both, however, were raw and untested, and this gave labor a small window of opportunity. Many committee hearings were scheduled in the coming days for a wide swath of labor legislation, and Soderstrom intended to pack them all with his men. He was determined to hit early and hit hard, setting the field of play before any potential opponents could object. If they played their cards right, they could get their bills going before the opposition knew what hit them, and stop Woodward’s advance before it began by denying him a foothold.

The plan worked, at least initially. Time and again, Soderstrom flooded the floor. Through speeches and support, Reuben won favorable hearings and subcommittees stacked with the legislators of his choice.[29] By the end of the first week of March Reuben had secured favorable committee action on nearly all his bills.[30]

Meanwhile, Reuben didn’t pull any punches when it came to the Woodward legislation. In an unsigned message to all labor, Soderstrom warned that “War has been declared against organized labor in Illinois.” Hot with anger, Reub directly compared Woodward’s proposed legislation to Nazi tactics:

The American Constitution is to be disregarded. The principles of American liberty are to be proclaimed unworkable. American democracy is to be subjected to ridicule as a fraud and a delusion. There is nothing new about this. It’s all in “Mein Kampf.”

Relying on class prejudice and with a faint pretense of preparing against Hitlerism in America, the Honorable Robert M. Woodward, representing the 29th Senatorial District of Chicago, acting as a ‘front’ for an unannounced and unidentified force, is apparently attempting to raise the Nazi flag in Illinois.[31]

The bombastic rhetoric achieved its intended effect. Reub further refused any compromise. When asked what amendments could be made to secure the labor president’s support of Woodward’s bills, “President Soderstrom replied that the bills were all thoroughly bad, that nothing that could be done to them could make good bills out of them, that neither that amendment nor any other amendment would be acceptable to the Federation, and that the Federation would oppose the measures in their present form or in any other form.”[32]

Reuben’s staunch opposition ensured Woodward’s bills went nowhere. In the end, they died in committee without ever seeing a floor vote in either chamber.[33]

Luckily, Reuben was able to pass some reform, despite the political cowardice and opportunism that he saw pervading the legislature. The Anti-Kickback bill, Prevailing Rate of Wage bill, and Strike Notification bill all became law in the closing hours of the session. Even more importantly, Soderstrom was also able to work with Donnelly and the IMA to craft important improvements to Workman’s Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and the Occupational Disease Act. These “agreed amendments” were the product of “a series of conferences…between representatives of employers, representatives of labor, and subcommittees, in accordance with instructions of the House and Senate Committees on Judiciary.[34]” In all, these amendments increased the length, benefits and weekly maximums of unemployment compensation, increased workman’s compensation by 10%, and payments for fatal accidents by 10%. They also protected the jobs of servicemen, ensuring that those enlisting had jobs to return to when their service was over.[35]

While these gains were important, they did little to wash some of the bitter taste of the legislative session from Reuben’s mouth. As he told reporters at the 62nd General Assembly’s close:

The new legislative administration can in no way be regarded as progressive. What wage-earners secured aside from ‘agreed bills’ was meager and grudgingly given. There were a few Republicans, of course, who courageously introduced and sponsored controversial labor bills, but most of the Republican leadership in the legislature was consistently ultra-conservative and disappointing to the progressive-minded people of the state.[36]

SODERSTROM TAKES ON OLD FOES, NEW INFLUENCES

Edmundson and the Illinois CIO

Adding to Reub’s frustration over the stalling of his agenda was the seeming preference given to laws sponsored by the rival Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The first labor legislation to eventually pass the legislature was a less-comprehensive CIO version of Soderstrom’s Wage Guarantee bill. In a column that was in turns despairing and threatening, Reuben ruefully noted that the CIO’s aggressive bullying tactics seemed to curry more favor with the current legislature than the AFL’s more discreet approach. “Some observers have suggested that perhaps President Soderstrom and Secretary Olander of the Illinois State Federation of Labor had better change their tactics, disregard courtesy, throw politeness to the winds, and begin calling names. Queer business!”[37]

The CIO had in fact been gaining strength in Illinois. Under the leadership of Illinois United Mine Workers President Ray Edmundson, the Illinois CIO had by their own account reached a membership of over 300,000 (although ISFL estimates put Edmundson’s roll at closer to 100,000).[38] They had done this in large part by poaching AFL unions, even if it meant ultimately undercutting existing union contracts. As Thomas Downie, former editor of the Galesburg Labor News, described in a speech before the ISFL:

I have seen this develop to a point where it is no longer a question of organizing the unorganized. It is a question of raiding those who are already organized…The leadership of the raiding crews are not those fundamental old-time trade unionists who went out on strike with the United Mine Workers. You find that the type of men who are leading organizations to raid the trades… are not men who understand the trades, but men who are out to seek what they think are the benefits that come from trade union leadership. They are out to win anywhere they can, regardless of what they do to this great trade union movement and you have to be on the alert.[39]

Although an effective recruiter (albeit with questionable tactics), Edmundson was poor at passing legislation. By the session’s close the CIO chieftain and his legislative representative, Harry Deck, had virtually nothing to show for their effort. The one bill they did sponsor passed only by virtue of being a more watered-down, management-friendly alternative to an ISFL bill that would have otherwise become law. While Reuben could point to specific bills and amendments that he had drafted and passed, Edmundson could only talk about what didn’t become law, trying to take credit in the press for the defeat of the Woodward bills (legislation that the ISFL had a much more credible role in preventing).[40] As Victor Olander wrote in a private letter to Reuben:

All things considered, it is really funny. You will remember, of course, that he was prominent in the legislative work during the last session only by his utter silence and complete absence. I cannot recall a single instance in which he appeared before any committee of the legislature on any subject throughout the entire session. There are indications that he doesn’t even know what the legislative program was.[41]

Despite this apparent ineffectiveness, the Illinois CIO had grown established enough by 1941 to call their own first statewide convention. Belligerent and paranoid, Edmundson used the opportunity of this announcement to (somewhat bizarrely) take swipes at Reuben’s character. Speaking to reporters on the first week of August, Ray accused Reuben of ineffectiveness and personal corruption, claiming his CIO sought to “give relief to oppressed members of the A.F. of L. in racketeering unions.”[42]

Never one to back down from a fight, Reuben shot back, calling Edmundson and his men “babes in the woods” who had best tend to their own house before throwing stones. “We don’t want racketeers in the A.F. of L . and we get rid of them as fast as they are uncovered,” he told the press. “The C.I.O. should devote its attention to eradicating communists from its own organization…The C.I.O. industrial union movement has worn itself out, but the A.F. of L. is stronger than ever.”[43] Soderstrom went on to tout the 13,840 new members the ISFL had gained in the last year alone. At 520,000 strong, his organization was now bigger than it was before the AFL/CIO split. Most importantly, Reuben said, his organization was built on democratic principles—as opposed to the dictatorial structure of the CIO:

Our organization is built on the bedrock of democracy. All our officials are elected to office, but Edmundson and other C.I.O. officials are merely appointed to their posts…(The ISFL has) transformed Illinois from a backward state into one of the leading labor states in America. Twenty-eight of these proposals bore my personal stamp. That is the best answer I can give to Edmundson’s charge that I haven’t shown any leadership.[44]

Edmundson didn’t take this public spanking well. The following day he returned fire, swearing the CIO would overtake Reuben’s ISFL in 12 to 18 months. He repeated his charge of corruption, calling the Chicago building trades unions “racketeering organizations” that charged “exorbitant and outrageous initiation fees…Chicago is the last stronghold of reaction, racketeering and collusion between employers and employees. We expect to break the stranglehold that this collaboration means to workers.”[45]

Edmundson didn’t stop there. In public statements and private correspondence, he continued to blame the ISFL generally and Soderstrom specifically for every CIO failure, while taking credit for the passage of legislation he had no hand in. A letter from Edmundson to CIO president Philip Murray is just one such example. Without providing any example or evidence, Ray boasts:

Illinois has made more advances in behalf of labor than any other state in the nation…the CIO of Illinois played a major role in securing enactment of important labor and social legislation and in defeating every single anti-labor proposal…The bottleneck of labor’s whole legislative program was lack of cooperation by Reuben G. Soderstrom, president of the Illinois State Federation of Labor, with all elements of labor as well as other liberal forces of this state.[46]

Ray went on to actually accuse Reuben of “doing everything possible to sabotage” pro-labor legislation.[47] When Soderstrom, despite these attacks, called at the ISFL convention for the rank and file of labor to “force peace” between the AFL and CIO because “the welfare of every working man is at stake,” the disgruntled CIO leader churlishly replied, “As long as Soderstrom retains his post as a protector of racketeers, we don’t want unity with that kind of organization. When the A.F. of L. gets new leadership and gives its rank and file some sort of democracy, then it will be time to sit down and talk unity.”[48]

It’s unclear what exactly spawned Edmundson’s ire. It could have been an inability to get as good as he gave, taking too personally Reub’s tweaking in response to racketeering charges. It could have been anger at being left out of negotiations between labor and business over serious legislation like workmen’s compensation or occupational disease. What was clear, however, was that Edmundson knew how to goad an enemy and nurse a grudge. It was this talent that would continue to thrust and parry with Reuben all year.

Corruption and Racketeers: “Drive the Rascals Out”

Edmundson’s charge of corruption was made all the sillier by the fact that Reuben had literally put his life on the line to fight corruption and organized crime. Twice already, attempts had been made on Reuben’s life.[49] In spite of this (or perhaps because of it), Soderstrom refused to be cowed, doing all he could to root out abuse. He was continually wary of wayward locals who misused the rights and freedoms of unionism. The challenges of corruption became all the worse as the quickly escalating needs of wartime production created new opportunities for abuse and graft. In a stern warning to members that February, Reub wrote:

The moment has now come, however, to sound a warning. Rights that are abused are eventually lost. The trade union movement must now, more than ever, safeguard itself against the misuse of its organization by adventurers who are concerned mainly about their own personal interests and those who have little, if any, regard for others.[50]

Reuben continued this fight as the year progressed, guarding against what he called the “intrusion of gangsters and other disreputable characters” into labor unions. In his convention address that year he condemned the presence of “evil men in some trade unions.” A man of action as well as words, Soderstrom severed affiliation with one corrupt union and held the affiliation of several others in abeyance in an effort to combat “racketeering influences.”[51]

Reuben wasn’t alone in this fight. Working alongside with him was John Fitzpatrick, President of the Chicago Federation of Labor. Together, Soderstrom and Fitzpatrick had worked for over a decade to “drive the rascals out.” When the Chicago Tribune, a conservative paper, conducted an expose in 1941 exposing union corruption, its staff received anonymous threats. Fitzpatrick quickly and loudly condemned the threats and defended the paper:

While the Chicago Federation of Labor and the Chicago Tribune do not always agree on what is best for labor, there can be no difference between us on the urgency of driving the rascals from the labor movement in Chicago and everywhere else…These pilferers of the trusting and innocent workers are the most dangerous enemies labor has today. There is no place in organized labor for the racketeer, the chiseler, the fixer or the terrorist.[52]

The Tribune returned the favor, writing the following day:

Pious declarations by other labor leaders on the subject of racketeering have become a tedious commonplace in the nation. What makes the stand of President Fitzpatrick and his associates unique, to our knowledge, is the fact that they have shown that they mean what they say by doing something about it.[53]

In the pages of the ISFL Weekly, Reuben echoed his support:

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…the Chicago action should be emulated in every other division of the organized labor movement of the United States wherever rascals have “muscled in.”[54]

OVERREACH

Durkin Out, Murphy In

In the wake of a disappointing legislative session, Reuben decided he should get away for a while. That summer he and his wife Jeanne took a much-needed vacation. Embarking on a journey that would become an annual tradition, the couple packed up their car for a three-week journey. First they traveled to Birmingham, Alabama by way of Evansville, Indiana to view the statue of Vulcan erected in tribute to union steelworkers. Next, the couple made their way to Florida, visiting Tallahassee, St. Petersburg, and the famous Cypress Gardens botanical gardens. Strolling amidst the peaceful palms, Reub could momentarily forget the chaos at home.

And then the moment was gone. Soon after returning, Reub turned his attention to the problem of competing conventions—the ISFL convention in Danville and the growing headache that was the new CIO convention in Springfield, scheduled immediately following. While the ISFL convention ran smoothly and successfully, its message was muted by the bombastic antics that followed at the Illinois capitol.

In his keynote address, Edmundson declared war on the ISFL, promising “No quarter will be given and none asked…With this new council, the CIO will build a wall around the state of Illinois and call the domain its own.[55]” He also called for the ouster of Illinois Department of Labor Director Marin Durkin. The IDOL leader had earned Edmundson’s undying hatred the past spring, when he ruled a group of CIO miners ineligible for unemployment compensation for the time they’d spent on strike.[56] Edmundson had cried for Durkin’s head ever since. Reub quickly and strongly swung to Durkin’s defense. In a signed public plea, Reuben made the case for Durkin’s retention, arguing:

Under the leadership of Director Martin P. Durkin, the State Department of Labor is constantly growing and is functioning in a very satisfactory way… The policy of the American Federation of Labor has always been to elect our friends and defeat our enemies, regardless of party…It is also labor’s policy to support the appointee who is in office if he is rendering good service- and the State Director of Labor is doing just that. Because the Illinois State Federation believes in rewarding faithful service we are supporting Martin P. Durkin.[57]

Still, the odds were stacked heavily against Durkin. Not only had he lost the support of the CIO, but by September of that year he was only one of two remaining appointees from the previous Democratic Governor’s administration. There were rumors he was going to be tapped for a national post. Green was also eager to replace the AFL-affiliated Durkin with a candidate who would be viewed as “neutral” in the AFL-CIO fight. Finally, on September 29th, Durkin resigned his post, with Green announcing Francis Murphy, the president of the Deep Water Way Coal & Dock Company of Chicago, as his replacement.

The news sent Reuben through the roof. Not only was his man out, but he was to be replaced by a man with no history in labor a selection which to Soderstrom was in direct violation of Governor Green’s pledge to select a director “qualified to handle the problems of labor, one in whom the wage earners of the state have implicit confidence.”[58] Murphy was no such man. “The Illinois State Department of Labor has virtually been handed over to a coal merchant!” Reuben roared. “Governor Green has deliberately turned his back on the entire working population of the state to name a political employer to take charge of the labor interests in Illinois.”[59] Olander was likewise inflamed, crying that the Governor had “sold us down the river!” He vowed to fight the nomination tooth and nail, proclaiming “The day has long since passed when any substantial number of Illinois workers will tamely submit to the snarling command to ‘bend yo’ knee and bow yo’ head,’ whether it comes from the politicians or anybody else!”[60]

Together Reuben and Olander began a campaign to have Murphy removed. Week after week, they slammed Murphy and Green in the press, hammering them with headlines like “Governor Green Flouts Illinois Workers,” “Indefensible,” and “The Broken Pledge.”[61] They sought and secured a condemnation of the Governor’s action from AFL President Green, who called the appointment “indefensible even from a political point of view…a rare departure from the policy pursued by practically all governors in all states in appointing Commissioners of Labor or the heads of State Labor Departments.”[62] They taunted the Director to “show his card” of union membership, repeatedly making the case that Murphy’s lack of union experience disqualified him as a candidate for IDOL Director. Reuben repeated this refrain to the Freeport Journal-Standard:

It’s a great mistake…This is something no other governor has done- appointing an employer to direct Illinois labor. We have a lawyer for attorney general and a former farmer for Director of Agriculture, but Governor Green now picks a man who does not carry a union card to head labor.[63]

Unfortunately, their argument was intellectually sound but politically disastrous. While Reub and Victor were busy attacking the freshman Governor, the CIO’s Edmundson took the opportunity to ingratiate himself to the new administration by publicly supporting the choice. As he told the press:

The governor should be congratulated on the appointment. Mr. Murphy is eminently qualified for the position and will be fair to all elements coming within the jurisdiction of his department, including the A.F. of L., the C.I.O., the employers and the state inspection service.[64]

Other ISFL unions also quietly moved to support Murphy. In their shared (and mutually affirming) anger, Soderstrom and Olander hadn’t stopped to gauge the sentiment of those they represented. Although not a union member, Murphy seemed a genuinely amiable fellow, and few unions wanted to be on the wrong side of the man who controlled millions of dollars in unemployment compensation. The new IDOL Director also proved politically savvy, retroactively awarding both the CIO’s United Mine Workers and the AFL-affiliated Progressive Mine Workers unemployment compensation for the past spring’s strike to the tune of $1,000,000.[65] Soderstrom and Olander soon became isolated in their opposition. Less than a month after Murphy’s appointment, Governor Green was openly dismissive of their protests, telling the press the two were “about the only objectors” and noted that a number of AFL union leaders had commended the appointment.[66] By November, labor opinion writers like SP Miller, editor of The Labor Record, Inc., also began to endorse Murphy.[67]

Then came the damning blow. As the Edwardsville Intelligencer proclaimed on its front page on December 6:

Revolt flared within the ranks of the Illinois State Federation of Labor (AFL) today with the Progressive Mine Workers of America on record as endorsing appointment of State Labor Director Francis B. Murphy. Victor Olander, Secretary of the state group, had previously urged Murphy’s dismissal…The Progressive union’s action lines it up with the United Mine Workers of America (CIO) which through its president, Ray Edmundson, Springfield, had approved the appointment.[68]

The alignment of the ISFL’s Progressive Miners with the CIO’s United Mine Workers not only effectively killed Reuben’s and Victor’s campaign against Murphy; it very publicly undermined Reuben’s authority and tested the limits of his leadership. Reuben, feeling personally betrayed, directed every ounce of his considerable fury at PMWA President Keck. In a letter to AFL President Green, Soderstrom denounced Keck, claiming:

President Keck seems to have a tacit policy designed to discredit himself and his associate officers of the Progressive Miners union. This appears to be done to create dissatisfaction, suspicion and rebellion among the membership of the A.F. of L. coal miners he is supposed to be giving guidance and leadership to.[69]

To Soderstrom, Keck’s actions were just the first step towards a larger goal of realignment with the CIO, to whom Edmundson had earlier offered the presidency of the Illinois UMWA if the Progressive Miners were to rejoin.[70] He continued:

I have no way of definitely proving all of my suspicions but I am beginning to reluctantly believe President Keck is completely influenced and dominated by Ray Edmundson …I am convinced that President Keck is a counterfeit and I felt that I had no right to withhold my views and opinions about him any longer. I am convinced that his actions are not due to dumbness and stupidity but are designed somehow to bring discredit upon the Progressive Miners’ leadership in the constant scheming going on in Illinois to deliver this membership back to John L. Lewis.[71]

Ultimately, Keck didn’t shift the PMWA’s allegiance, but the vehemence of Reub’s response shows how deeply wounded he was by the actions of Keck, Miller, and others, both politically and personally. For him, the decision to support or protest the Governor’s appointment was a matter not just of opinion; it was a question of morality, of right or wrong, of honesty.[72]

The loss did not leave him disillusioned or jaded, however. Just the opposite; the Murphy battle convinced Reuben that what union leaders needed was a greater strength of character and courage of conviction. As he had time and again, Soderstrom would not conform his acts or expectations to the supposed reality of Illinois politics; he would instead attempt to transform the political landscape to his meet his ideals. However, the historian feels the undeniable struggles Reuben faced during this time, including a state legislature not friendly to labor, intense and bitter competition from the rival CIO, and the roiling anxieties of international conflict.

Race, Color, or Creed

Of all the issues requiring courage and conviction, perhaps none posed a greater challenge to organized labor that that of racial equality. The history of race and labor in the United States was often contradictory and always complicated. For reasons both principled and practical, unions should have been naturally allied with groups seeking racial equality. As the famed Arthur Goldberg, at the time a lawyer for the CFL, later wrote in his chronicle of labor history:

It may seem surprising that racial discrimination…has ever been an issue in unions. Racial discrimination is morally wrong and unions are formed to achieve moral and ethical goals, and, of course, racial discrimination has no rational justification. Finally, as a practical matter the effectiveness of a union depends on its organizing all of the workers in its field, not just those of a particular color or a particular racial descent. If, for example, Negro workers remain unorganized and work for low wages, the wages of all white workers in the same industry inevitability will be adversely affected.[73]

Sure enough, some of the most important advocates for racial parity were also labor leaders. A. Philip Randolph, the pioneering civil rights leader and founder of the radical Messenger monthly, was also the organizer and president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the first predominantly black labor union. The AFL was likewise officially opposed to discrimination for reasons of race, creed, or color.

Despite this official stance, however, the AFL remained haunted by the plague of racism. Many unions within the Federation refused to accept workers of color, and still more union men and women sadly perpetuated such prejudices. While the AFL directly organized Negro workers, there was no requirement that member unions accept black members. According to the AFL Executive Council, the Federation’s policy of “self-restraint” meant the AFL “cannot interfere with the autonomy of National and International unions. The American Federation of Labor cannot say who are eligible or who are not eligible to membership in National and International unions.”[74] AFL President Green was himself personally supportive of Randolph, publicly in favor of his aims and privately intervening where he felt he could. Still, Green stopped short of compulsory action, believing it beyond his authority.[75]

This position was hardly satisfactory to union workers of color, who denounced the Negro unions as both unjustified and powerless. In Randolph’s words, the “Federal form of organization that the American Federation of Labor provides for the Negro workers is virtually no organization at all.[76]” Unable to find relief within the structures of the AFL, black union activists increasingly turned to political activism. As the National Defense Program continued to expand, discrimination within the armed services and the companies that served them became a chief target. In 1941, Randolph organized the March on Washington Movement, which sought to bring over 100,000 protesters to the nation’s capital. In response to the proposed march, President Roosevelt issued executive order 8802, which barred racial discrimination in the defense industry. This news was especially welcome in Illinois, where black citizens had hit a “job ceiling.” By some estimates, discrimination against men and women of color had cost the black community over 10,000 skilled jobs in Chicago alone. Black workers were routinely turned away from WPA jobs, told by managers they would not “tolerate a Negro working with whites on this job.”[77]

It was in this environment that Charles Jenkins, a Negro Representative from Cook County, began introducing a series of bills to prohibit discrimination on the base of “race, color, or creed.” His most famous of these, House Bill 37, popularly known as the Jenkins-Warfield Act, specifically prohibited race discrimination in hiring by war defense contractors.[78] Although it initially stalled, in the wake of FDR’s executive order Jenkin’s bill easily passed, becoming the nation’s first general fair employment practices statute, and is generally considered a landmark labor bill for the state and the nation.[79]

Reuben initially supported Jenkin’s bill, hailing it as a “square deal for Negroes,” but his support became muted as the year progressed. He was, after all, in favor of racial equality within unions, writing both publicly and privately about the reality of discrimination and the need for equality in labor. A letter sent to fellow laborers that very year is just one such example:

There can be no doubt that there are many unfair discriminations against capable and willing Negroes, based on nothing but race…The Negro is one of us who has his rightful place in the life of the Nation, just like other citizens, with the same rights, the same duties, and with may more difficulties to overcome. He is entitled to the sympathetic aid of his fellow citizens.[80]

The most credible explanation for Reuben’s reticence lies in an examination of the particular bills that drew the ISFL’s opposition, as well as a larger possible difference of opinion between Soderstrom and Olander. In 1941 Jenkins and his fellow Negro legislators unveiled a series of discrimination bans targeting a variety of institutions, from businesses to schools to hospitals.[81] HB 269 sought to legally forbid discrimination by labor organizations. For some time, Reuben struggled with whether or not to support the bill. After being handed an advance copy by Jenkins, Reuben wrote to Secretary Olander, describing his thoughts and concerns. The letter shows a leader who, like AFL President Green, was struggling to reconcile the need to fight discrimination with the principle of voluntary association:

While there is no color bar in the American Federation of Labor…[discrimination] does exist in some unions affiliated with the A.F. of L. Frankly, I do not know how to wipe it out completely because the A.F. of L. has no right to invade its affiliated organizations with (the) regulations necessary to accomplish it. Unions are voluntary institutions. They have a right to a right to legislate for themselves relative to who shall be admitted or who shall be excluded from membership. To destroy this right by legislative action would mean the destruction of this voluntary principle…Against this, however, the American Federation of Labor has always believed in raising the level of living for all people regardless of race, creed or color or previous condition of servitude.[82]

For much of the letter Reuben seems at a genuine crossroads, earnestly trying to discern the right course of action. When Jenkins had put forth the idea of this bill two years ago, Olander had advised opposition because the penalty for discrimination was disqualification of a union as a bargaining agent. Victor worried this language “might easily be used by interests hostile to labor to further their own ends.”[83] This time, however, that language had been removed, and the state of New York had reportedly passed an identical bill in the interim. Could now be the moment to support Jenkins’s bill? In a letter to Vic, Reuben appeared to signal it might be; at the least he felt the bill deserved careful consideration:

The main thing that you successfully objected to in House Bill No. 373 two years ago has been eliminated from House Bill No. 269, introduced today. If Representative Jenkins is right and the State of New York has enacted this bill it places those who feel justified in opposing it at a much greater disadvantage than they were two years ago. Since this is a very delicate question I thought it best to mail you the attached copy of the bill so you could do some thinking in odd moments about what our position should be.[84]

Victor, however, remained steadfastly opposed. Like Reuben, he believed in racial equality, at least in the abstract. However, when it came to HB 269, Olander was convinced that it would backfire. As he wrote to Reuben:

I think it is unenforceable, of practically no value, and with little affect other than to hamper the efforts of those who, like you and I, are making continual efforts to obtain greater opportunities for Negro workers. The promotion of measures like the Jenkins bill tends to arouse the very prejudice against which the bill’s allegedly directed.[85]

It is not unfair to read in this a larger difference between Reuben and Olander with respect to race. While nothing in Olander’s writing suggests a racial bias against people of color, unlike Reuben there is also nothing to suggest he believes in a pervasive structural racism, or that, if there is one, that it is a problem worthy of serious legal redress. As a scholar, Olander devoted a considerable amount of his intellectual effort towards a reinterpretation of the thirteenth amendment, one which effectively posited that it should be viewed not as a protection for freed (black) slaves but for (white) citizen workers, an analysis that, while important for labor, also had problematic racial implications.

In the end, Reuben heeded the advice of his trusted councilor, and the ISFL came out in opposition to the bill. It is, however, worthwhile to note that the ISFL’s articles arguing against HB 269 are largely direct quotations from Olander, rather than from Reub or even unattributed editorial statements.[86] While the obstruction of this bill had little direct effect on labor and race relations, the fight against HB 269 did pull the ISFL’s precious attention and effort away from the fight for equality in the workplace. Still, even in Soderstrom’s opposition to HB 269 we can see repeated affirmations of broader efforts to eliminate racial discrimination. Citing union efforts to end discriminatory hiring practices, Reuben wrote, “It is not an easy problem…Patient and persistent effort is what is needed, on the basis of persuasion and education.”[87] Letters like these reflect on a struggle that mirrored the one occurring within the popular consciousness, a wrestling with the reality of racism and the need to take more aggressive measures to combat it. It was a conflict which would come into stark relief in the years to come.

THE LABOR PATRIOT

Despite some missteps and a brutal legislative session, Reuben finished the year strong. Unemployment was the lowest it had been in years, ISFL enrollment was at a record high, and despite some bruises Reub had won new protections for working men and women while beating back attempts to use the threat of war to curtail established rights. Perhaps even more importantly, Soderstrom had, through his arguments and exhortations, developed a coherent philosophy of the “labor patriot.” This vision of the labor patriot was of a man who, though nameless, was both the foundation and guardian of American liberty, fusing faith, love of country, and union loyalty in a way that made them seemingly indistinguishable.

No writing or speech better illustrates this ideal than Reuben’s 1941 Labor Day message. Reuben begins his celebratory address in a deeply patriotic tone, intimately connecting unionism with love of country:

All holidays are important. We need them to commemorate religious, patriotic, economic, and historical events…Labor Day is distinctively American, and is observed only in the United States and its territorial possessions…Labor Day is a day which marks unity through unionism. It is a day of intense patriotism. To organized workers, unionism and patriotism spell Americanism. It is the day on which these sentiments are on parade. Working people gather at celebrations to inspire each other, to review the accomplishments of the past year, to strengthen their patriotism, to renew their faith in trade unionism, to pledge anew their loyalty to our country and to American democracy. Old Glory is unfurled to the breeze by the calloused hands of toilers and ‘God Bless America’ songs are sung everywhere sincerely and wholeheartedly.[88]

Reub then deftly turns from God’s blessings to man’s sins, faulting them - especially greed - for the twin evils of industry and war:

The human family has been granted by Divinity an abundance of everything to make life good and kindly, generous and beautiful. Man has been given power even over the abundance of nature, but instead of making Christ-like use of these gifts, man has been brought to the brink of ruin by his failure to obey the rules of the Almighty and the laws of Nature which thoughtful people recognize are related—probably one and the same thing.

And success or well-being in life is as easy as that, or, to put the thought in reverse, as hard as all that. The most difficult struggle of all is to attain control over one’s self. The employers of labor, too, are in the same boat. They seem to find it easier to sidestep the mental and physical effort necessary to establish control over selfishness and greed. This is the evil of our industrial system. It is the evil of our distribution problem.

And if this is true in Illinois, it is true nationally and throughout the world. The whole world is suffering the awful pangs of remorse, punishment and war because of its failure to establish control over greed. And if there is no control over selfishness among leaders—civic leaders, political leaders, industrial leaders—there will be none in the world, not even the organized labor world.[89]

As the year began to wind to a close and America settled down for the holiday season, all eyes were glued to the events unfolding in Europe. With German Panzers on the outskirts of Moscow, Rommel tearing through Libya, and U-boats terrorizing the oceans, families sat down and listened to the nightly news broadcasts anxiously awaiting the latest on the Nazi advance.

Then, in the early hours of December 7, 1941, all of America was caught by surprise when six Japanese carriers launched a wave of over 180 bombers and fighters slightly 200 miles north of the Hawaiian Island of Oahu. By the time the US navy recognized the approaching swarm for what it was, it was too late. The Japanese strike force ravaged the ships anchored in Pearl Harbor, damaging or destroying eight battleships, three cruisers, three destroyers, and nearly 200 US aircraft.

News of the attack spread quickly. One can easily imagine Reuben, spending a relaxing Sunday in his Streator home nestled next to his RCA Victor radio and lost in the sounds of Sammy Kaye’s “Sunday Serenade” when the news broke over the wire. “From the NBC newsroom in New York…President Roosevelt said in a statement today that the Japanese have attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii from the air. I’ll repeat that: President Roosevelt says that the Japanese have attacked Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii, from the air…”[90]

As the news sank in, shock first turned to horror before giving way to a mix of anger and resolve. Reuben steeled himself, mentally preparing for what would come next. The moment had arrived: labor was at war.

* * *