LABOR, INDUSTRY, AND GOVERNMENT UNITE

The devastating attack on American soil in the closing weeks of 1941 terrified the country. Reuben captured the feelings and fears of the nation in the days following the bombing, describing the mood in detail in a 1942 address he gave later that year before the Illinois State Federation of Labor delegation:

December 7, 1941, will always be a significant date in American history. It will be remembered as the Sunday of Awakening and will stand out as the occasion upon which unity and solidarity was achieved in the international crisis… America emerged from her world of dreams to face her enemies…

You and I sat at the radio that fateful afternoon… we were aware something else was happening during these historic hours when America woke up. Something we couldn’t see, something we couldn’t hear, something we could only feel, and yet it was as real as the sound coming over the airwaves, as the December evening dusk fell over the trees around our homes, and across the street. It was America coming together forgetting her differences, joining hands wholeheartedly for the conflict.

Differences faded into thin air as the realization of what America meant became real; that miraculous, all-powerful force known as public opinion, changed and crystallized between the noon-meal and the night and while we had no word of confirmation about it, we knew it. The next day on the surface, the face of our world appeared about the same. I recall the front porch with the folded newspaper; the neighbor’s house with the friendly smoke from the chimney; the main street with people going to work as usual; but something fundamental had changed. Americans, in this thing together, knew on that morning that we were, better or for worse, come what may, in it wholeheartedly and without reservation, realizing as we never did before that we were what we had always proclaimed—one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all![1]

This coming together was not vague or airy; it was determined and of consequence. Groups that had long been at each other’s throats—including the AFL, CIO and employers—were now united against a common enemy. In the wake of Japan’s attack and Germany’s declaration of war, President Roosevelt called together representatives of labor and industry to “reach unanimous agreement to prevent the interruption of production.” Out of that conference came a three-point-plan promising:

1. No strikes or lockouts in defense industries
2. The creation of a War Labor Board, established by the President, to settle all unresolved disputes.
3. All grievances would be submitted to the Board.[2]

The new National War Labor Board was both inclusive and powerful. Formed by President Roosevelt through Executive Order, it was comprised of appointees representing labor, industry, and the general public. It was given the authority to determine any dispute that could not be solved by normal procedures. Once the board assumed responsibility, its decision was final; there would be no alternative.

For Labor, this was a big leap of faith. Although the men and women of the AFL had already pledged not to strike where defense interests were concerned, handing over so much authority to the President and his appointees required no small measure of trust. The board also split union representation evenly between the AFL and CIO, who were still distrustful of one another. Despite this, many, like AFL President Green, needed little prompting. As he proclaimed in a radio address delivered days before the Plan was announced:

The American Federation of Labor…will cheerfully make every sacrifice the Government calls upon them to make. American labor and American industry are now marching hand in hand with the Government to speed victory by assuring an all-out, uninterrupted defense production. All sides have agreed that there shall be no strikes or lockouts for the duration of the war and that such disputes as may arise will be settled by peaceful means without stopping the wheels of production.[3]

Still, many friends of labor worried that surrendering their greatest weapon--the strike--and the suspension of collective bargaining to the President’s men would lead to an erosion of the rights they had spent decades fighting for. They were essentially placing their fortunes “in the lap of the commission.”[4] To these friends (and similar voices in industry), Reuben made an impassioned plea for trust. In his published essay “Unity and War,” Soderstrom publicly argued that for labor to succeed-for America to succeed-labor must be unified not just within but without, standing alongside industry and government. The Nation must work to provide a seamless front to the enemy; any in labor or industry who sought their own advantage at the expense of that unity did so at their own peril. Reuben stated:

A policy of divided effort means disaster and failure for all of us…Division means retrogression, means going backward. Unity means progress, hope, aspirations, better conditions. The most essential lesson for wage earners to learn, the most essential lessen for citizens to learn, at this time, is that of unity. Unity of purpose; unity of thought; unity of action; unity of effort; unity of hearts. An organization or a nation is like a family. Our interests are all bound up together, and while there may be divisions of opinion, such divisions of opinion should not allow us to forget that one is necessary to the success of all, and that an injury to one affects us all and is of concern to all. What we should make the first business in life is unity for each other and for all—a mutuality of assistance beneficial and helpful at all times to all; and I repeat that our most important obligation at this time is to pull together, not for a day, nor a week, nor a year, but for the entire duration of the war. And may I remind you again that this nation is at war. Anyone who does not take that seriously is just stupid.[5]

SODERSTROM BUTTRESSES STATE’S WAR EFFORTS

Leads Labor in State, Local Efforts

While Reuben made the case for unified action to the nation, he worked at home to make it a reality. In the weeks following the Japanese attack, Soderstrom called an emergency meeting of the ISFL Executive Board. Together, they officially resolved:

The Executive Board of the Illinois State federation of Labor Hereby calls upon the officers and members of the organized labor movement, and all other workers in Illinois, to strive to do their utmost to increase national defense production throughout the state to the highest possible degree; to cooperate with and aid all other citizens in the maintenance of a high degree of morale throughout Illinois in relation to all matters affecting the national interest; to avoid strikes and jurisdictional disputes or other activities likely to interfere with defense production; and in all of their attitudes during the war emergency, to give first thought to the needs of the great republic of which they are free and equal citizens, thus giving unmistakable proof to all the world that the freest people are the strongest people.[6]

Just three days later, the “clans of Illinois labor” gathered in Chicago in response to a call from the Illinois Committee of Labor, a group formed by the US Coordinator of Civilian Defense and comprised of AFL, CIO, and Railway brotherhood representatives. Nearly 1,200 trade union officers representing every division of labor from Chicago and the surrounding area packed the halls of the Chicago City Council chamber. Again, with one voice (and in language nearly identical to Reub’s Executive Board resolution) they affirmed to do all they could to increase defense production.[7] The message was loud and clear: Illinois labor was united behind the President and the nation. “Superior equipment means final victory and we are 100 per cent behind the president—behind him, in back of him, in front of him and all-around him,” Reuben boasted to a reporter in the wake of the event. “And with the equipment, we will beat the enemy!”[8]

Reuben was soon called upon to serve on a host of state committees to help with the war effort, both directly and indirectly. In addition to his post on the Illinois State Defense Council and the Illinois Development Council, Soderstrom also acted as a member of the Illinois Statewide Public Health Committee and the University of Illinois Advisory Committee.[9]

In Reuben’s hometown of Streator, the Japanese strike touched a deep chord. Two of the Harbor’s dead, Harold Christopher and Leo Jaegle, were local sons. As the first wartime draft registration opened in Streator that February 16, the air of somber determination was palpable, leading one local reporter to remark “while there was the usual banter on the part of many registrants, a grimness was evident, as in many instances father and sons marched together to add their names to the roster.”[10] By May of that year, over 814 men from Streator and nearby towns were in service abroad, while at home locals rationed, donated, and largely did without. In August Streator joined other cities in employing planned blackouts to reduce energy consumption. Common items like sugar and cigarettes became scarce, while others like silk stockings disappeared entirely.

Streator also became a center for wartime production. The local industries, including the Anthony Company, ran three shifts seven days a week. To Reub’s satisfaction, payrolls doubled as Streator workers sweated to produce “everything from trench shovels to trailers for delivering bombs,” exceeding Army-Navy production quotas.[11] Streator labor wasn’t limited to city limits; that spring many locals also began work at the Seneca shipyards on the Navy’s Landing Ship, Tank boats (LSTs). One of those men would be Reuben’s son, Carl.

Finances the Fight

Of course, one of the greatest struggles the nation faced was how to pay for all the increased production, and in this field Soderstrom led both the state and the nation. During the last World War Reub was a minuteman, selling war bonds to help cover the costs of the fight. He’d developed a talent and reputation for the practice, and as the US ramped up its war production it was only natural that he would push for a revival of the practice. Reuben had been hard at work in support of Defense Savings Bonds even before Pearl Harbor, authoring a resolution at the 1941 AFL convention in support of the Defense Savings Program - an action which earned him the personal thanks of Assistant secretary of the Treasury James Houghteling.[12] Before long Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. appointed Reub to the Defense Savings Committee.

With the war now in full swing, Reub made every effort to help provide for the national defense. In interviews with the local press, the ISFL President emphasized that “We’ll have to out-finance and outfight the enemy and that means we will have to get busy on defense bonds and stamps drive.”[13] The day before FDR announced the creation of his War Labor Board, Reuben was in Springfield organizing a massive Unity Parade. Speaking before an assembled crowd of over 20,000 alongside Mayor Kapp and Illinois CIO chief Ray Edmundson, Reub opened the city’s $500,000 defense bond drive.[14] He followed this with an impressive string of speeches and events throughout the state, including a “Minute Man Drive” that May. He advised his readers:

In the three-day period, May 11, 12, and 13, the greatest all-out effort on record in the history of Illinois will get under way…No worker will be overlooked. Systematically, block by block, in the cities and towns, and mile by mile in rural areas, a vast army of ‘Minute Men and Women’ will see that every income receiver is pledged to Bond and Stamp purchases on a regular and continuing basis…Welcome the ‘Minute Man’ when he knocks at your door.[15]

As the year progressed, Reub spent so many miles on the road in his prized Buick Century on behalf of labor and country that he wore through the rubber on his tires. He petitioned the rationing board for a new set, explaining that in the last few months he’d put over 41,500 miles of wear on his car in his to campaign to sell one billion dollars worth of bonds to union members.[16] Norman B. Collins, State Administrator for the War Savings Program, promptly replied to the request, writing Soderstrom, “I am sure that if anyone is entitled to receive new tires you are.”[17] Collins also sent a letter to the rationing board in Streator asking they comply, reminding them that “Mr. Soderstrom is State Chairman of our Labor Division and as such he is a valuable member of the War savings Staff.”[18] Reub got his tires.

The President’s Personal Representative

Soderstrom’s responsibilities expanded well beyond the state, however. In Washington, Reuben served his country as a member of the US Industrial Safety Commission (War Department). He was also the Illinois representative for the U.S. Defense Savings Staff as well as the U.S. War Finance Committee (Treasury Department).[19]

Perhaps Soderstrom’s greatest national role in 1942, however, was that of personal representative for American Federation of Labor President William Green. It began in the summer of 1941, when Green asked Reuben to speak on his behalf at the Iowa State Federation of Labor Convention.[20] The following year, Green greatly expanded Reuben’s role, asking the ISFL president to act as his personal representative in an explosive labor dispute in the latter’s old stomping ground of Saint Louis, Mo. A conflict had arisen between the powerful local Operating Engineers and the other unions of the city’s Central Body. The stakes were high; failure to resolve the fight could leave the constituent unions vulnerable to racketeers, industrialist attacks, or CIO takeover. Soderstrom, however, proved the right man for the job, able to negotiate an end to the tense standoff. As the appreciative Green wrote upon Reuben’s return:

I knew when I asked you to take up this St. Louis central body controversy that I was calling upon you to deal with a very complicated and most difficult situation. It was for that reason especially that I felt you were the one man who could do the job. Your report makes it clear that my judgment was well founded and that you performed your task in a highly commendable way.[21]

A few months later Green dispatched Soderstrom again, this time to Minneapolis for a national meeting of the Coordinating Committee. A joint committee representing the AFL, CIO, and the Railroad Brotherhood, the Coordinating Committee was responsible for formulating labor’s political front. Again Reuben earned Green’s respect and admiration, both for his work and his “impressive address.”[22] Four months after that, Green called upon Soderstrom again, this time to act as an arbitrator in a national labor dispute between the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America and the Retail Clerks International Protective Association. Once again, Reub was able to bring the affair to a peaceful resolution. “You did a fine piece of work,” Green wrote him, “When through patience and the exercise of discretion and sound judgment you brought the representatives of the two organizations together into a common accord.”[23]

One can imagine Reuben Soderstrom--sitting in a tense conference room with two hostile parties—exercising formidable powers of listening, cajoling and compromise to bring resolution to longstanding, bitter standoffs. His energy as a type of arbitrator in these situations must have been expansive when needed, authoritarian when challenged, and overall successful because he got the job done when no one else could. By the close of 1942, our 54-year-old protagonist had proven himself not only to be a skilled orator and fundraiser, but an adept negotiator, able to enter seemingly intractable disputes and help the parties somehow find accommodation. It was a talent he would call upon repeatedly in the years to come.

CASUALTIES OF WAR

Reuben Asserts Rights of Women Workers, Expands Education

As America entered the war, speed of production became of paramount importance. Alongside the War Labor Board, Roosevelt created the National Manpower Commission and the War Production Board, tasked with, among other things, transitioning peacetime industries to a war-ready footing. It was no easy task; officials estimated that the roughly 5,000,000 workers currently employed in war industries would need to be joined by another 6,700,000 before the year’s end, just as most young men of working age were heading off to war.[24] Faced with such great need and dire shortage, many industries began turning to women to fill the gap. At the start of 1942, fewer than 500,000 women were at work in war industries. The U.S. Department of Labor, in contrast, believed that more than 6,000,000 women could be recruited for the cause.[25]

While excited at the prospect of women gaining greater opportunity through work, Reuben and others in labor cautioned against allowing an erosion of working women’s rights, particularly equal pay and the recently won eight-hour day. “Trade unions need to plan at once for protection of women in wages, hours, and working conditions,” Reuben wrote that spring.[26] In a call to arms, Soderstrom prevailed upon all unions to be vigilant in the fight for equal rights and equal pay:

Union standards and union protection will be essential for women war workers. The rate of pay for the job should be maintained, whether held by a man or a woman…Unions must consider how they can provide for women war workers, to assure fairness and adequate protection, and to prevent undermining established labor standards.[27]

In addition to women, many industries looked to another major source of labor—the recently unemployed. As traditional industries moved to war production, they had to lay off large portions of their old workforce. That January the government estimated 12,000,000 peacetime workers would join the 4,000,000 already unemployed, with 70% of the layoffs coming from auto and auto equipment companies.[28] This created a “revolving door” for workers, who were being let go from their jobs in record numbers at this hour of critical need.

To solve this crisis, Reuben and the ISFL called for a massive build-up of education and apprenticeship programs. Public high schools throughout Illinois and the nation inaugurated special training courses.[29] The related National Youth Administration trained over 3,000 Illinois men and women between the ages of 17 and 24 each month for work in industry.[30]

Reuben also believed in educating workers about their rights as well as in their skills. He promoted programs like the CFL Labor School, where over a 10-week period students could take courses including “Labor Relations and Labor Law,” “Parliamentary Law and Public Speaking,” and “Better English and Labor Journalism.”[31] Other events were held throughout the year to help inform and educate workers. One of the biggest that year, the Moline Labor Institute, was a week-long symposium that brought in several illustrious speakers from the U.S., U.K., and China, as well as several Germans in exile.[32] Soderstrom also made a regular practice of publishing educational articles in the ISFL Weekly Newsletter, teaching workers the history of labor and informing them of their rights under the law.

Labor Sacrifices, Dies for War Effort

With the full support of organized labor behind it, wartime production began to soar. Airplane production increased fourfold in under two years, while the number of naval ships produced rocketed from 5 in the beginning of 1941 to 55 a year later. The number of shipyards grew by 30% and overall production by 20%.[33] Across the nation, labor rose to the challenges of wartime production. Seattle shipyards turned out ships up to 6 weeks ahead of schedule, while San Francisco built ships up to 100 days in advance of expectations.[34] Illinois production was particularly spectacular, producing ships like the Landing Ship Tanks (LSTs) and all other manner of supplies. In the words of Col. Donald Armstrong, Deputy District Chief of the U.S. Army Chicago Ordinance District, to the industrial management and labor of the Chicago Metropolitan Area:

You have shown me…what a patriotic group the Chicago industry is. We have had from you outstanding cooperation…If you examine the labor record, you will find that no other district in the United States has anywhere near as good a record in the matter of strikes as the Chicago Ordinance District. I have never seen in my years of service a more loyal group of civilian employees, men and women, who cooperate 100% that that shall be true.[35]

This expanded production came at a cost, however, particularly for working men and women. To keep the shipyards open 24/7, union men in the Metal Trades Department and the Building Trades agreed to give up double time for the 6th day of continuous work, cutting their wages significantly. At the same time, inflation pushed the cost of living for the working class to record highs. All this led to a more than 18% reduction in real wages for laboring men and women.[36]

As steep as they were, reduced wages and extra loads were the least of the burdens workers suffered. In the rush to produce, workplace death rates jumped across the country. In July of 1942, National Safety Council figures showed six times as many people were killed in workplace accidents as had been killed in combat warfare.[37] No less than 26,000 men between the ages of 20 and 45 alone were killed on the job in work-related accidents-the equivalent of nearly two army divisions.[38] Illinois was hit especially hard; Reub’s state saw a work-related death increase of over 30%, the second-highest increase in the nation.[39] Writer Michael Evans gave an excruciatingly graphic depiction of the injuries one working woman suffered in the August 1942 issue of the Coronet:

In two seconds it happened. There was Stella’s grisly scream of horror as the steel fingers of the stamping machine snagged the ragged cuff of her sleeve and hurled her arm forward under its descending jaws. Then her head was pitched against the metal uprights and the scream vanished like a squall from the radio when you flip the switch.

Stella was knocked unconscious and there was no sound but the clamp, clamp, clamp of the machine. You could not hear the rubbery snap as steel brackets ripped the big muscles in her shoulder—nor the hiss of hot blood spouting vacantly from the torn vesicles like water jetting from a kinked garden hose….[40]

The maiming of “Stella” and those like her horrified Reuben. Even before the war, Soderstrom had fought hard for increased safety. Now, with workplace deaths and injuries exploding, Reub worked harder than ever to bring this tragedy to public attention. In his essay “Figures of Concern to All,” Reub highlighted this “hidden tragedy”:

The American war losses since Pearl Harbor are 4,801 dead, 3,128 wounded, and 36,124 missing- a total of 44,143. The National Safety Council announces for the same period, 30,000 dead and 2,500,000 injured as the results of industrial accidents to American Civilian workers. The total American accident toll since Pearl Harbor, including automobile accidents, totals 60,000 killed and 5,500,000 injured….

Labor has no desire to minimize the grim losses sustained in the carnage of war. These men are heroes and died for our country. We respect and revere them. Over sixty-five percent of the soldiers in the army, navy and air corps came from homes of wage-earners. They belong to us. But the worker does not like the inexcusable attitude of silence associated with the dozen times greater list of deaths and injuries from accident in civilian life—many of them preventable.

Every common sense safety-precaution in the household, highway and at work should be religiously practiced and observed, so that losses at home will be reduced to a point below that of those who were called upon to fight and die on the field of battle.[41]

Reuben Defends Freedom, Attacks Overwork

Soderstrom soon discovered that one of the best ways to prevent workplace injury and death was to end the insidious practice of overwork. In the face of the labor shortage, popular opinion latched on to the notion that employees should be worked 10 hours a day, seven days a week. Interestingly, most employers opposed this idea, as the Fair Labor Standards act would force them to pay time and a half for this work. Politicians and profitable news personalities, however, saw self-serving gain in prescribing overwork as a magical cure-all to the national need. Throughout 1942 they pushed for laws compelling labor and removing such protections as the Women’s Eight Hour Law and the Six Day Week Law.

Soderstrom punched back at this roll-back of rights from the first, calling it not only bad for workers but destructive for production:

Overwork, even though consented to by the worker, dulls both mind and body, and therefore must inevitably retard production. Overtime pay is no remedy, except to the extent that the cost serves to restrict overtime work. Any person capable of logical reasoning, and familiar with the mental and physical reactions of human beings, must admit, as a self-evident proposition, that the high point of production cannot be reached and maintained by overwork of men and women…[42]

Effective war production, Reuben maintained, depended on effective workers, and an overworked laborer was anything but:

Accuracy, speed, continuity. These are the essentials of high war production. Knowledge, skill and alertness on the part of workers are indispensable. To obtain the best results in production, knowledge must be increased, skill improved, and alertness maintained. There is no other way. This means short work periods for men and women, utilizing plants and machines over larger periods through shifts of workers...[43]

The attempt to compel laborers to work past the breaking point wasn’t simply ineffective; it was morally wrong. Reuben and Victor contended robbing workers of their right to their own labor—of their right of choice—undermined the very principles America was going to war to protect. “Americanism,” in Olander’s definition, was at its core a “declaration against human bondage,” and that declaration as fully realized in the 13th Amendment meant that no citizen could be forced to labor, whether in the fields of the South or the factories of the North.[44]

This freedom was not just a right, however—it was also a responsibility. This new World War was not simply a fight amongst nations or armies; to Reuben it was a fight of ideas, waged between ideologies of freedom and control, of labor forced and freely given. It was, in his words, a “challenge to free men.” As he eloquently wrote in the ISFL Weekly:

The people of America are facing their supreme test. They are the freest people of all the world. The United States of America surpasses all other nations in the personal freedom of the individual citizen. The American workers are protected against the evil of compulsory labor by a written Constitution, which cannot be altered by Congress. In labor service they have the right of choice, for no man can command their labor in civilian activities.

Having the right of choice, they must continue voluntarily to make the right choice—that which can best serve the national need. Hitler, the Mikado and Mussolini sneer at this, and insist that in war production their captive workers will produce more and better war material, under the force of compulsion, than can be produced by the voluntary efforts of the free men and women of America.

The foreign war trio is wrong, of course. Americans feel quite sure about that. But there’s only one possible method of proof to the world in this emergency, and that is in the amount and quality of war production.

Free men are under a test against slaves. The free men must now prove themselves. As they do so, the slaves will look on in wonder, then in hope and finally in rebellion against their masters.

This will freedom spread over the earth. That is why the United States of America must win without sacrificing the status of its common people as the freest men and women in all the world.[45]

Takes to the Air in New Press Offensive

The battle Reuben described wasn’t one only waged abroad. The struggle also raged at home, and one of the biggest battlefields was the court of public opinion. Recent events, particularly the aggressive tactics of John L. Lewis and the CIO, had fed a backlash against unions. As historian Joseph Rayback notes, “The war began in the midst of a strong public reaction against labor. Friends of labor feared that this sentiment might result in the enactment of repressive legislation.”[46] Metropolitan newspapers, guided by their conservative editorship, used any and every opportunity they could to advance the narrative that organized labor was a “fifth column,” bearing responsibility for any delay in production.

Such talk infuriated Reuben. Unafraid to give as good as he got, Reuben pulled no punches in his critique of the newspapers and reporters whom he viewed as in industry’s pocket; columnists like Westbrook Pegler, who wrote in favor of the conscription of labor. With scorching anger and thinly veiled contempt, Reuben mused in his own signed column that:

Uncle Sam ought to utilize non-essential newspaper columnists in war production work…These yelping folks are parasites who produce nothing of war-time value, while they live off the rest of us who are productive Americans, conscientiously and honestly working for American victory. All that these useless publishers and other non-essential union-baiting people have done in this Second World War, up to date, is to criticize those who have made the greatest contributions and sacrifices…

According to the putrid and cheap mouthings of these Fascist-minded overlords, organized labor is a needed but still unwelcome influence in the industrial brotherhood of war production people…Let’s take these non-producers, these anti-union cheering squads who have been yelping so loudly to ‘utilize all women and children first,’ and give them a chance to set labor an example, to dirty their hands and break a few industrial records. They sure have been full of ‘patriotic’ production comments and seem to know exactly how to break records when not in harness themselves, and the whole labor world would smilingly enjoy giving these physically lazy louts their chance to perform war work.[47]

Reuben knew that if he was to protect workers’ rights, he had to reverse the narrative. While he had long criticized what he viewed as biased print journalism, by 1942 a new breed of journalistic personality had come to the fore: the radio commentator. With rhetoric as coarse as any columnist and displaying even less restraint, many of these on-air personalities turned labor into a national scapegoat to build their reputations and ratings. As tenacious as ever, Soderstrom started the year out strong, openly taunting conservative radio personalities vilifying labor:

Radio commentators—A new business for profit!—have become very eloquent lately in urging the workers of America to work hard and unceasingly in the production of arms and munitions and supplies needed in the present war emergency. The commentators are right, but decidedly lopsided!

What about the employers? They own the plants. They direct operations. They give the orders. They reap the profits. Not a single one of them will consent to operate at a loss. All, without exception, must--and they insist—have a minimum sufficient to meet the cost of operation, including a very comfortable and even luxurious living for themselves and their families…

Yet the plea of radio orator is almost exclusively to the workers, never to the employers. What’s the matter? Are the commentators currying favor with one class of citizens against others for a profit? That’s an ugly suggestion, of course! But what’s the answer? The obvious fact is that the radio gentlemen seem to become enthusiastic on only one side of the issue. The situation warrants the query, ‘Are pocketbooks speaking, rather than brain? Or are they just ignorant of the practical affairs of life?’ Perhaps among them some may be found who will attempt an answer.[48]

His critics roundly tweaked, Soderstrom took the offensive. Never a stranger to reporters or interviews, Reuben now expanded his airtime exposure, making multiple appearances on Chicago radio station WCFL, the “Voice of Labor.” During “Americanism Week” (a precursor to the modern Presidents Day), Reuben gave a stirring address linking American values, unity, and labor in the midst of existential conflict:

On one occasion during the war between the states—1861 to 1865—from his room in the White House, President Lincoln looked out of the window at the flickering camp fires of the enemy, entrenched across the river, near Washington D.C. So close had defeat come to the capital of the nation in the days of our Civil War. Then he rose to face his rebellious cabinet, to stand firm against those who desired compromise or surrender. He resolved to fight to the end for a united nation. And unity is needed again today…

As a labor official I naturally believe in unity. Organized labor believes in democracy and democratic processes. The very word “union” means unity. And on this occasion our working people are glad to join with business men, professional men, political leaders, farmers, patriotic organizations and citizens generally in developing unity for American victory against the Hitlerized forces who have declared war on these United States![49]

Reuben didn’t limit himself to labor airwaves. He also took his message mainstream, participating in round tables on the CBS Chicago affiliate WBBM.[50] As the year progressed and his appearances continued to mount, Reuben became the literal “voice of labor” in Illinois, taking the fight against anti-union propaganda into the living rooms of Illinois.

SODERSTROM BLOCKS GOV FROM GUTTING LAW IN NAME OF WAR

Murphy Shows his Colors

Reuben took on a variety of opponents and special interests in 1942. Of all of these, however, none earned his ire more than Illinois Governor Dwight Green and his Secretary of Labor, Francis Murphy. President Soderstrom and his secretary, Victor Olander, had loudly denounced the Governor’s decision to appoint Murphy, a former coal industry executive, to a position that he had publicly promised to someone “whom the wage earners of the state have implicit confidence to administer the laws of the state affecting every wage earner,”[51] a statement Reub and nearly all labor voters took to mean a union man. Despite months of protest following his appointment on Reub and Vic’s part, deal-cutting and political advantage lead many other labor voices, most notably Illinois CIO chief Ray Edmundson, to give Murphy (and Governor Green) their endorsement. By the start of 1942, Soderstrom and Olander appeared outflanked and defeated.

Still they refused to let go. During the entire month of January the duo ran article after article, week after week, in the pages of the ISFL Weekly condemning Governor Green, Murphy’s selection, and Edmundson’s support. Murphy was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, they warned; it was only a matter of time before this pro-industrialist entrusted with the duty to protect labor would sell workers down the river.

Illinois didn’t have to wait long. In the weeks following Pearl Harbor, Murphy announced that he intended to permit suspensions of the Women’s Eight Hour Law and the Six Day Week Law. In Olander’s words, “Apparently he (Murphy) has set up some sort of ‘come see me’ arrangement where employers may obtain his permission to work women and girls, as well as men, longer than the law allows.”[52] The move angered not only Vic and Reub, but labor officials and women’s groups across the state.

Soderstrom was incredulous (if unsurprised) by the labor director’s anti-labor actions. What possessed Murphy to make him believe he could single-handedly overturn state law? In answer, Reuben received a cryptic invitation from Governor Green to a meeting at the Executive Mansion. The telegram, sent to 35 labor representatives in all, provided no agenda or stated purpose for the meeting--just a date and location. However, Victor Olander, despite his status as one of the highest ranking labor officials in the state, was curiously left off the guest list. The message was clear; Olander was out, and Reuben was to come alone.

At the meeting, Governor Green told those assembled that Murphy and his administration was acting at the behest of the Roosevelt administration in issuing the “relaxations” of state labor laws. Washington, he said, had asked for these exemptions to stop state (and possibly federal) legislatures from emasculating the labor laws themselves. He appealed to the patriotism of those assembled, asking for their support (or at least silence) in the name of the President.[53]

The Governor’s Deception

Reuben left the meeting feeling suspicious. Support of Murphy’s and Green’s “relaxations”—violations, in truth- of state law seemed fundamentally wrong; still, if the President believed it was necessary, should he disagree? Could it really prevent lasting damage to those laws if he looked the other way, just for a bit?

Reub got his answer on a tip from Miss Agnes Nestor, the famous social reformer and ISFL ally. The day after the gathering, she received from a confidential source a copy of an internal memo from George Barrett, Governor Green’s Attorney General, to Murphy on the legality of these relaxations.[54] While finding them legal, Barrett’s reasoning essentially invalidated the laws in matters of interstate commerce, gutting these and all state protections—not just temporarily, but from that point forward.[55] Despite the fact that this document had been issued on December 15, 1941—well before the Governor’s meeting—he had hidden its existence from the group, knowing the impact it would have.

That was only the first deception to come to light. After the meeting Reuben wrote to US Secretary of Labor Francis Perkens, whom he had worked with repeatedly in various Washington visits and committee appointments, to see if Roosevelt did indeed ask for these labor protection rollbacks. The Secretary’s answer was a resounding “NO!” In an official letter to the ISFL, Perkins stated she “did not for a moment wish to indicate approval of the practice of granting variations from the labor law when no power to grant such variations was given the administrative officer.”[56]

Governor Green, meanwhile, quickly moved to make his controversial director’s decision appear settled. He billed the “mansion meeting” as an endorsement of the policy in the press, claiming the labor community supported the labor law suspensions. He also attempted to use the Attorney General’s memo to his advantage, claiming it validated Murphy’s (and his) authority to violate state law.

Reuben immediately called upon the ISFL’s General Counsel, Dan Carmell, to fight back. Carmell challenged the Attorney General’s ruling, furnishing a variety of rulings from other states convincing noted constitutional lawyer Walter F. Dodd to issue an opinion on labor’s behalf. Soderstrom and Olander, meanwhile, kept the heat on Murphy in the press, highlighting not only the questionable legality of the Governor’s policy but the ethical troubles the Administration’s actions raised.[57] Faced with mounting public pressure, the Governor’s lawyer appealed to the Solicitor of Labor at the U.S. Department of Labor, who upheld worker protections and held Murphy’s actions invalid. Barrett then reversed his opinion, defeating Murphy and Governor Green’s maneuver.[58]

Soderstrom on Gov: “Two Time Double Cross”

It was a huge victory for Reuben and Olander. Finally, after months of setbacks, lies and slander, they had succeeded in stopping Murphy. In the wake of Barrett’s decision, Green sent an envoy, a pro-Green union official, to the ISFL’s Chicago office with an offer of truce. As Reuben later recounted:

(Green offered) a proposal that the present state director of labor be moved out and a union man be appointed in his place. This, he said, was to take place if we would agree to discontinue comment about this controversy in the Weekly Newsletter. We accepted the proposition in good faith. The next day this same trade union official called Secretary Olander over the telephone and stated that the Governor was delighted with our acceptance and that the Governor would carry out his end of it if we would carry out ours.[59]

Reuben carried out his end of the bargain. For months the ISFL Weekly Newsletter remained silent on the issue of Murphy and his attempted rollbacks as Soderstrom eagerly awaited news of Murphy’s resignation. He continued to hold his tongue as the weeks turned into months. The heat of summer came and passed without word of Murphy’s removal. By late September Reuben began to realize he’d been played; the momentum and popular anger over Murphy’s appointment had dissipated, but Murphy himself wasn’t going anywhere.

Reuben was overwhelmed with anger. Never in all his years as a legislator or labor official had he been so blatantly lied to. Dunne, Lowden, Small, Emmerson, Horner, Stelle- Democrat or Republican, pro-labor or against, he’d worked with them all, and despite their individual shortcomings, at least he knew that when they shook hands in private, he could trust their word.

By the time of the ISFL convention, an open breach had developed between President Soderstrom and Governor Green. In his opening remarks, Reub charged Green had “double crossed” labor through his appointments and policies, revealing the “little secret” of the Governor’s private promise and betrayal. Slamming him for Murphy as well as other “two-timing” actions, Reub called on members to protest what he described as the “playboy antics of the playboy governor,” saying:

Apparently Governor Green has fooled us twice. It is the two time double cross…He promised to take the provisions of the federal wage and hour act and extend them to cover intra-state industries, but instead he actually tried to take away from labor two laws we already have. Through improper administration in the labor department he tried to nullify, relax and destroy the women’s eight hour day law and the one day rest in seven law, just to satisfy a few greedy employers. He failed to appoint a man of labor at the head of our state labor department…He has done none of the things he promised to do…In other words, Governor Green has double crossed labor and there is nothing for labor to do but return the compliment.[60]

Green was aghast. He denied promising to quietly sack Murphy, and refuted the assertion that he’d broken his campaign pledge. In an open letter to Soderstrom, Green protested:

Your remarks, delivered either in the heat of passion or under the stress of political bias, contain so many inaccuracies that in fairness to labor in this state and in justice to me and my associates in the state administration I deem it necessary to point out a number of facts which you have apparently forgotten…I know, of course, that you preferred my keeping in office the former democratic director of labor, but I am sure it is possible for a man to have great sympathies for the cause of labor in the administration of the laws of the state and yet not be a member of organized labor. Mr. Murphy has demonstrated that he is such a man.[61]

Soderstrom promptly returned fire, charging the Governor with “ruling by fooling” and reaffirming that all the members of the ISFL would remain in protest until Murphy was removed.[62] The bad blood between Reuben and the Governor continued to sour as the 1942 elections approached. Although the Governor himself was not up for election, many in his party were, and Reuben worked hard and openly for their defeat. It was a risky gamble - one that he lost. Illinois, like the nation, moved toward the Republican Party in 1942. While the swing was not as dramatic (Illinois Republicans gained no Senate and five House seats, while the party gained eight Senate and forty-five House seats nationally), it did mean that Republicans controlled both the General Assembly and the Governorship, putting labor legislatively on the defensive.[63]

Significantly, the fight marked an abiding rift between the Illinois State Federation of Labor and the Governor’s office - a rift that would only become more problematic as the 1943 legislature began.

“Cudgels in Defense of Faith”

While the Governor’s actions clearly angered Reuben, he could not afford to linger. Soderstrom was busy, and his national reputation in the labor world, already on the rise, grew even further after the publication of his article “The Worker’s Two Friends.” As he had previously done in local print and radio appearances, Reuben used this full-page editorial to push back against the narrative that labor cared only for its own interests at the expense of the nation. He extolled labor’s virtues and sacrifices for the country during time of war, finding fault only in workers’ failure to speak loudly about their accomplishments and the costs they endured:

Organized labor has been too quiet since open warfare started with the Axis nations. It ought to talk more about the fine and continuous contribution it is making to the nation in the workshop, in the air, on the land and on the sea. Invite these critics to check the official list of soldiers, sailors, marines and coast guardsmen killed since the beginning of the war, December 7, 1941. What percentage of these casualties came from the professional world? What percentage came from the business world? The percentage of those who have made the supreme sacrifice, from families that work for a livelihood, is greater than all the other groups combined.

Easily over fifty percent of those who died at Pearl Harbor came from homes of wage-earners... While the labor movement respects every man who wears the uniform of the United States, it is clearly provable that the smug elements which criticize the most, and contribute the least, are cheating those who are making the largest and most costly contribution out of the credit which is rightfully theirs…Let’s talk about our skill in the navy yards, in the munition plants, in the aviation factories. Let the whole world know about the large number of carpenters, painters, plumbers, machinists, electricians, common laborers, teamsters, and the millions of miscellaneous steel workers, mill workers, miners, lumber jacks, and transportation people who are giving their time, money, and male youngsters to this evolutionary war. Modesty among American citizens is a virtue which should be observed only so long as there is no disadvantage in its practice. Let’s brag a little, too, about the war nurses who grew up in the homes of wage-earners.[64]

Labor workers were now, as ever, under attack. But while in the past workers could only count on one another, they now had a second friend, Reuben declared, in Roosevelt:

The Federal Government is definitely on the side of labor and humanity and, in return for that friendship, labor and humanity is very definitely on the side of the federal government. All of which is a very natural result of mutual friendship. We always like those who like us. That’s natural. The Roosevelt administration is for labor and labor is for the Roosevelt administration. That, too is natural![65]

But for Soderstrom, it wasn’t enough for organized labor to support Roosevelt. His clashes with Green, Murphy, and the new crop of craven Republican politicians who couldn’t keep their word had convinced Reub that workers had to defeat what he called “reactionary candidates” all across the board, at every level. He pointedly asked for all labor, even those members like himself who traditionally identified as Republican, to vote Democratic in the coming election:

Under such possibilities and circumstances, no one with good sense will deny that a landslide—a democratic landslide—is in the making, and since the President of the United States is about the only real friend the worker has, aside from his fellow worker, this seems to be a good time to forget our political party affiliations and give support at the polls to congressional candidates who are going to uphold America’s great commander-in-chief, President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It’s time for members of labor unions to take up cudgels in defense of their own faith. Reactionaries are not worth fighting for and certainly not worth voting for…Let’s take our cue from those who are maligning us. Let’s use their tactics. Oppose them rough shod. This is a period when men are taught to expect no mercy and to give none. An eye for an eye policy applied to them by labor only half as energetically as they have applied this policy to us would swell democratic majorities into the greatest democratic landslide the country has ever witnessed.[66] This was a different Reuben. Certainly, Soderstrom had always been pugnacious, as well as a strong supporter of Roosevelt. But over the course of 1942 his politics had become more partisan and his tone became more determined. His tireless work on behalf of labor and the country, his fights with an increasingly negative and duplicitous press, and above all his complete break with the Governor had created a man fully prepared to dirty his hands, fight fire with fire, and unabashedly work against the political party that he now saw as hopelessly in the hands of anti-union interests.

Reuben’s words touched a national nerve, spreading throughout the country like wildfire. Labor papers across the country reprinted his “Two Friends” article, and even the Roosevelt Administration took notice of its impact. It was a message he carried on through to the ISFL convention, addressing the assembly from underneath a huge portrait of President Roosevelt in the Peoria ballroom.[67] Speaking to the wearied crowd, Reuben recounted the recent events of the war, from victories at Midway and Guadalcanal in the Pacific to allied losses at the hands of Rommel’s feared Afrika Korps. Linking the fate of the Allies to the fortunes of labor, Soderstrom reaffirmed labor’s loyalty and resolve:

Nowhere in America is the labor movement of any state more patriotic and loyal than in the labor movement of Illinois. Now that the nation is at war labor has proven its patriotism by voluntarily giving up its right to strike for the duration of the war. Organized labor will meet the issue in such a fashion, and with determination, to preserve to itself and to those who are to follow us, that priceless gift of liberty and pursuit of happiness, the right of free speech, the right of freedom of religion, in short, and in the words of the immortal Lincoln, “That this government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish.”[68]

REUBEN BECOMES A GRANDFATHER

While Reuben’s public life was fraught with drama, his private life in 1942 was much more joyful. The previous year, the 54-year-old had welcomed the young and beautiful Virginia Merriner into his family when she married his son, Carl. Now, less than a year and a half later, he had the privilege of introducing yet another: his first grandson, Carl Jr. Born on Armistice Day, November 11, 1942, the healthy, seven-pound, two-ounce baby was a wondrous boon not only to Carl and Virginia but the whole Soderstrom clan. As the local paper noted, “Mr. and Mrs. A.W. Merriner and Mr. and Mrs. R.G. Soderstrom of this city are grandparents for the first time and can’t seem to talk about anything these days but their new grandson!”[69]

“Little Carl” was a perfectly timed blessing for the labor leader. After a year filled with so much death, deception, and doubt, it seemed fitting to end it with the birth of an innocent, the epitome of all the nation was fighting for. Reuben’s new status as a grandfather reinvigorated him, reminding him of the affirming optimism that naturally coursed through his veins, the source of his strength. It was a well he would draw from repeatedly in the dark years to come.

* * *