REUBEN “KNOCKED FROM PILLAR TO POST”

Victor Olander Dies

On Tuesday, February 8, 1949, Willard Banks wrote to Reuben, “It was nice to see you, even for a moment yesterday. I did not try for more as I knew how busy you were.”[1] Banks’s observation was an understatement to say the least. Reuben’s closest friend and compatriot, Victor Olander, had died unexpectedly after a short illness that Saturday afternoon, leaving Soderstrom without the man who had been, in his words, “my closest chum and associate for 27 consecutive years.”[2] Two days later Reub buried his best friend, visibly shaking with emotion as he described the man he’d come to both respect and love:

The lives of many men, women and children were made happier because he lived…A scintillating debater, able, logical and convincing, he could unfold his views in a manner at once engaging, kindly, and sincere. Although extremely human in everything he discussed and did in the field of eloquence, it can be truthfully said of him that he was always considerate, always a friend of every person who needed a friend…

And now, as the curtain falls, and Victor A. Olander’s name is flashed on the skyline of eternity, we in the labor movement salute him as a sincere friend and comrade, a great leader of men, a trustworthy son of labor in Illinois, the personification of all things distinctly American. It should be said of him that he was indeed a good and faithful servant of the movement of the workers, as well as a servant of the Great Ruler above. May he rest in eternal peace![3]

Victor’s brilliant mind and unwavering commitment to wage earners were without equal; Reuben later described him as a man “who outshines most of us (labor leaders), he was the greatest amongst us when he was alive, and active.”[4] However, with that intelligence and conviction came a moral certainty and refusal to compromise that could come across as stubborn and off-putting. His impolitic nature had become especially problematic in recent years, leading him to assume positions and pick fights that had left him, and at times the ISFL, politically isolated. Through it all, though, Reuben remained by his side.

While they always made decisions in lockstep, by 1949 the duty largely fell to Soderstrom to make their stands politically viable. Over the past decade, Reuben had spent an increasing amount of time mending relationships and soothing egos that Victor had upset. This wasn’t lost on Banks, who as Director of Publicity for the Hamilton Advertising Agency knew a thing or two about damage control. As his letter to Reub, written the day after Victor’s funeral, continued:

I could not help but be thinking what a source of satisfaction it must be to you that you had been given the patience and understanding to get through some of the past trying years as smoothly as you did. A genius is never easy to live with. I could not help but know how often you were called upon to repair fences that a bit more tact might have made unnecessary. In the doing you added many more years of usefulness to a brilliant career than I believe would have been possible otherwise.

Best wishes for your success in the coming years. It doesn’t look like they are going to be easy, either.[5]

Soon Banks would be proved right.

Governor Stevenson Selects CIO Chief, Sidelines ISFL

One of the first difficult issues Reuben had to tackle in 1949 was the new regime in Springfield. On the surface, the situation appeared heavily favorable to labor. The sixty-sixth General Assembly was markedly more pro-labor; Democrats picked up five seats in the Senate and another 16 in the House, giving them control of the latter, and Adlai Stevenson brought the governorship into Democratic hands for the first time in eight years.[6] Illinois Democrats made national gains as well, winning 12 of Illinois’s 26 seats. Both US Senators were Democratic, with Reuben’s good friend, freshman Paul Douglas defeating the famously anti-labor Wayland Brooks. Veteran Illinois statesman Scott Lucas became majority leader in the US Senate.

However, these results carried distinct problems for Soderstrom. First, some of those Democratic representatives won their seats from Republicans who had received ISFL endorsements, making them ambivalent to Reuben at best.[7] Reub also actively campaigned for Republican CW Bishop, playing a possibly decisive factor in the Republican’s 3% win over his Democratic challenger. While Reub’s support of these representatives was principled—Bishop, for example, had been one of the few Republicans to vote against Taft-Hartley—it earned him few friends in the Democratic Party.

More troublesome was Reub’s backing of then-Governor Green in his race against Adlai Stevenson. While a vexing choice for several reasons, from a political standpoint Reub’s decision to back the losing candidate cost him considerable clout in the governor’s office. He and his ISFL were now on the outside, while the CIO (which had endorsed Stevenson) became the favored labor faction in Springfield. On the day before Christmas, 1948, Governor Stevenson told Soderstrom that he intended to appoint Frank Annunzio, Director of the CIO’s Political Action Committee, to replace Gordon as head of the Illinois State Department of Labor.[8] While he wasn’t pleased, Reub didn’t take particular offense; the decision was, as he described it, “Plainly a matter of party politics.”[9] What happened next, however, set the ISFL on fire.

Shortly after the new General Assembly opened on January 5, an ailing Victor Olander received a call from Fern Rauch, a vice-president of the ISFL, who shared that the governor had called him to Chicago. Vic advised Fern to meet with Stevenson, but urged him not to commit to anything until the full ISFL Executive Board could meet. Despite Fern’s assurances, the next thing Soderstrom and Olander heard on the matter was the press reporting that Rauch had been named Assistant Deputy Director. Soderstrom was furious that one of his men would accept a post without clearing it with him first. The assistant post was meaningless; in Reuben’s words, “The ‘assistant’ has no particular duties to perform, and in the past has never been heard from, once appointed. It is a title which has never appeared on a single communication received at the offices of the Illinois State Federation of Labor since the birth of the Department over thirty years ago.”[10] Rauch’s acceptance gave cover to Stevenson’s choice of a CIO man, all without winning any meaningful concessions for the ISFL.

What angered Reuben more than the bad politics of Fern’s acceptance was his silence. Upon hearing the news, Vic and Reub immediately tried to call Fern. While he refused to talk to Olander, Fern did take Reub’s call to confirm that he took the appointment. That was the last either man heard from Rauch, at least privately. When they wrote to him about the constitutional issues caused by his acceptance—the ISFL charter barred officials from holding salaried appointed positions—Rauch did not write back, instead choosing to announce to the press that he would resign his ISFL vice-presidency. Reub shot back: “It is all just too bad, but Rauch, probably under the pressure of excitement, has apparently put his morals in reverse.”[11]

The issues raised in the Rauch affair, particularly the ethical problems of ISFL officials accepting salaried appointed posts from the governor, would soon come back to haunt Illinois labor. The matter of Rauch himself, in contrast, was soon forgotten, at least for the moment. Soon after his appointment as assistant secretary, Rauch was expunged from the ISFL Executive Board and Stanley Johnson, a newcomer from Chicago, was added to the list of vice presidents.[12] Shortly thereafter, the new board selected Vice President Earl J. McMahon to replace the recently deceased Victor Olander as secretary-treasurer on a “part-time” basis.[13] Before long the ISFL leadership had stabilized, and reporters sniffing for controversy soon latched on to a new issue—the re-emergence of the “ConCon.”

Refutes the “Con Con”

Of all the political issues to emerge in Illinois in 1949, none seemed hotter than the question of whether or not the state would hold a new Constitutional Convention, or “Con Con.” The idea was not new. In November of 1918, at the very start of Reuben’s political career, the Illinois electorate voted to hold a convention for a new state constitution. Back then, every conceivable interest, including labor, viewed the event as a chance to write their interests permanently into state law. When the gathering convened in 1920, fights over taxation and upstate vs. downstate politics turned the convention into a spectacular mess, with delegates backed by the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association introducing language that twisted the proposed progressive tax—one of the key reasons for calling the convention—into a burden that fell disproportionately on the working poor.[14] By the time the new constitution was introduced to voters for approval in 1922, it was so compromised and convoluted that voters roundly rejected it. For over twenty years, no one in Illinois spoke of attempting to rewrite the constitution.

It was only at the conclusion of the Second World War that talks of a new constitution began to revive. It was a moment of worldwide change, with nations across the globe rewriting their social contracts to reflect the progressive values of the modern age. In Illinois, many of those returning from the war or shaped by it wanted to capture the moment for themselves. Beginning in 1945, many politicians and virtually all the press began pushing for a new constitutional convention. As before, the push for a new constitution centered on the issues of taxation and a re-orientation of upstate vs downstate politics, with many idealistic progressives viewing a new convention as the best way to achieve a more efficient, effective, and representative government. By 1949 those cries had reached a fevered pitch, with Governor Stevenson leading a full-court press for a referendum on whether or not a convention should be held.

Reuben came out strongly against a new Con Con. His position was at least in part the product of his collaboration with Olander who, as a strict constitutionalist, was fervently opposed to the wholesale rewriting of basic law. Victor’s death likely only intensified Reub’s desire to carry out what he viewed as his best chum’s last wish. Soderstrom was quite open about such influence; he opened his testimony before the House Executive Committee with a comment on House Resolution 9, authorizing a referendum on the Con Con, by telling those present, “I am not a constitutional expert, but I felt that I would be disloyal to the memory of my partner, Victor A. Olander, if I failed to appear and oppose HJR No. 9. Mr. Olander, as you folks know, was a constitutional authority.”[15]

While Victor may have been Reub’s inspiration, the State Federation leader grounded his argument on his own personal experience and foundational democratic principles. He’d seen first-hand how a well-meaning convention could be corrupted by powerful interests. Constitutional delegates, he feared, would be far less accountable to the public than legislators, and could wreak havoc on the freedoms and protections labor had worked so hard and so long to acquire. “It seems to me that the amendment method is the best procedure because it is considered by the members of the legislature, a responsible body of men and women, who are responsive to the will of the people.”

Instead of a new constitution, Soderstrom and the ISFL proposed a change to the amendment procedure to make individual constitutional changes easier. Called the “gateway amendment,” this new rule would liberalize the amending clause of the constitution by making it possible to offer three amendments to three articles of the constitution at one time, as opposed to the single change per election allowed under existing law.[16] This position aligned Soderstrom not only with moderate opponents but with the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, which feared a ConCon would lead to a graduated income tax.[17]

It was a sensible approach. However, the wider press, especially the Chicago Sun-Times, in the most extreme language imaginable attacked all who opposed the idea of the Con Con as opponents of democracy. The editors of the Bloomington Pantagraph took direct aim at those opposing the Con Con, writing:

The Illinois Association of Manufacturers and the American Federation of Labor leaders oppose the calling of a constitutional convention apparently because they fear the wisdom of people today to write a constitution that would fit today’s needs. They seem to think that men long since dead were better qualified for the job of creating the organic law under which we operate…That is distrust in the ability of the people to govern themselves. It is a demonstrated disbelieve in democracy.[18]

In a Daily Herald article entitled “What is the Con-Con Question?” writer and Professor Robert Johnson was even more hyperbolic, claiming:

What is the Con-Con question? The Con-Con question is nothing less than a test of the existence of democracy in Illinois. If you believe in democracy, you are for the Con-Con question. If you pay more than lip-service to democracy, you will do something about the Con-Con question…To deny the people this right would amount to a denial of fundamental democracy which has been a part of the American heritage since the days of the founding of these United States.[19]

Ultimately, Reuben was able to defeat the calls for a Con Con. In the longest session of the sixty-sixth General Assembly, legislators roundly rejected HJR No. 9 by a vote of 96 to 48 in April and again in May by a vote of 89 to 54.[20] HB 72, the infamous “party circle” bill, was likewise defeated.[21] Reuben’s Gateway Amendment, meanwhile, was adopted by the legislature by a vote of 46 to 0 in the Senate and 138 to 2 in the House.[22] By the end of the year, Soderstrom was able to claim a resounding legislative success.

Still, this win had come at political cost. Soderstrom’s stand, while practical and principled, still placed him against many progressive voices, including the newly-elected governor, Adlai Stevenson. Worse still, his vocal opposition associated him in the public mind with downstate party bosses and the infamous Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, unfortunate bedfellows to say the least. Virtually the entire press had cast the campaign against the Con Con as a crusade against democracy, and in defeat they set their sights on Soderstrom as possibly the biggest obstacle to their goals.

All of this negative publicity put incredible pressure on Reuben’s leadership, causing a crisis in labor. Although they started the fight publicly unified, by April Reuben estimated he could only claim to speak for “sixty per cent of the A.F.L. unions.” Groups like the Labor Unions for Constitutional Convention had sprung up in opposition, while the CIO and United Mine Workers publicly declared support for the Con Con.[23] Reuben had won the fight, but the sacrifices he made, combined with the events about to unfold, threatened to make it a Pyrrhic victory.

GOVERNOR GREEN’S CORRUPTION SCANDAL

The ConCon fight was bruising, but it was nothing compared to the ensuing brouhaha over a scandal from the offices of the former Governor Green. It all began with Soderstrom’s support of then-Governor Green in the 1948 election after the latter finally appointed an ISFL man to be the Illinois Director of Labor. As a result, Soderstrom had worked hard to secure the ISFL endorsement of Governor Green, convincing the largely pro-Adlai Stevenson delegates at the ISFL convention to table their planned resolution in support of Stevenson so that Reuben’s Executive Board could throw support to Green. But in so doing Reub acted contrary not only to the popular desire of his constituents but also the AFL, which had given Stevenson support through its National Labor League for Political Education.[24]

This was largely because the relationship between Soderstrom and Green had come a long way, starting when Green finally replaced his Department of Labor chief Francis Murphy, a coal merchant whom Soderstrom and Olander vigorously opposed, with AFL member Robert Gordon. Subsequent commitments made and kept by the governor in 1947 to oppose IMA–sponsored anti-labor legislation, in opposition to his own party, solidified Reuben’s support. By the end of the 1947 legislative session, Reuben had come to believe that Green found value in being a friend of labor.

However, Soderstrom’s support came at a time when the governor was less popular than ever. A series of hard-hitting investigative articles by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch had uncovered a culture of corruption within the Green administration, exposing ties between the “Green Machine” and downstate gangsters. Those discoveries proved to be the tip of the iceberg; as Roy J. Harris Jr. of The Beacon writes:

In 1947, Post-Dispatch reporters led by Harry Wilensky found Green operatives at the heart of a scheme in which coal companies paid off state inspectors, winning their mines a free pass despite deadly safety violations. The payoffs had a disastrous result in Centralia that year, when an explosion killed 111 miners—and started the Post-Dispatch on an investigation that eventually ended the state's hiring of mine inspectors by patronage, outlawed political contributions by coal companies, and led to prosecution of some lower-level officials who had been paid off.[25]

Green’s corruption led nearly every other labor group to support Adlai Stevenson. Despite this, Reuben continued his support of the governor. The move was not necessarily surprising to those who knew him; it was typical of Soderstrom to remain beside his allies even when it was politically unpopular. Time and again, he stood loyally by the men and women he called friends, no matter how difficult or unpopular such stands may have been. It was what motivated him to support Victor Olander, no matter how many fences that he had to mend. It was what compelled him to support Republican legislators like C.W. Bishop who had voted for labor, even if that support put him at odds with his own Democratic base. And it could well have been that same deep vein of loyalty that motivated Reuben to stand up for the governor who had helped hold back the formidable tide of anti-labor legislation that had swallowed nearly every other state.

Unfortunately, further investigative reporting into the governor’s affairs soon brought to light a new host of corrupt acts by the Green administration that touched almost every Illinois organization, including members of labor. In a Pulitzer-prize winning expose, Post-Dispatch reporter Roy J. Harris and Chicago Daily News journalist George Thiem uncovered a list of over 51 Illinois newspaper editors who had been given state jobs, apparently in return for favorable press coverage.[26] The “Green gravy train” didn’t stop there. The names of nineteen state labor heads were also found on the governor’s payroll, names that hurt the ISFL publicly. Reuben himself was never named or implicated, but one of his top lieutenants was, as the Belvidere Daily Republican reported on the front page of its June 11, 1949 edition:

Earl J. McMahon, a top Illinois labor leader, is among 19 union men listed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as holding ‘gravy train’ jobs under former Governor Dwight H. Green. McMahon, highly paid, full-time secretary of the AFL Chicago Building and Construction Trades Council and vice-president of the Illinois Labor federation, received $4,575 pay from the state in two years, the newspaper said yesterday.[27]

Granted, there was no clear indication of wrongdoing or a quid-pro-quo; Secretary McMahon vigorously defended his actions as perfectly legitimate, telling the press, “You can say I was a liaison man between the Department of Labor and the Building Trades. My job was to facilitate the work of the Department of Labor. I don’t know what title I had. Let them investigate. I’ll be here anytime.”[28]

The bad news didn’t end with McMahon; as The Pentagraph continued to report that Reuben’s son, Carl Soderstrom, had also been on the payroll and received $300 a month for nearly two years. At the time, Carl was not an elected official but a private citizen—a lawyer practicing in Streator—and quite possibly was retained as a consultant for the governor on labor matters in LaSalle County. Also on the governor’s list was John H. Walker, president of the ISFL in the 1920s who was profiled as a “labor department field investigator at $200 a month.”[29]

Compounding factors, Governor Green insisted on recording the payments in a secret ledger that was not formally monitored by his office staff. The recipients of the payments stated that they did not know Green was using a secret ledger. Moreover, the ISFL secretary, Earl McMahon, had received payments from Green while serving on the ISFL executive board, a clear violation of the Illinois Federation’s constitution for which Reuben had just drummed out Fern Rauch from the ISFL. Regardless of whether any of those implicated had in fact endorsed Green in return for payments, the mere appearance of impropriety wounded the ISFL’s reputation.

With the tide of the Green scandal lapping into the offices of the ISFL, Reuben moved swiftly to address it. After thorough research by the historian, it is apparent Reuben was a man learning of select violations within his own organization, which he moved quickly to terminate. For one, McMahon quickly resigned his post as ISFL Secretary. As Reuben’s sister Olga later recalled:

The President…could never be bought. Once it was said to him, “Why do you stay with Labor? Business would appreciate you much more than your folks who work.” They continued, “You know, we could buy at least half of your people to kill the other half.” But he was never interested in any programs except those for his people—the workers…It has been said that every man has his price. Not so with Reub. Reub told me once that the underworld, the racketeers, tried to move in on the Illinois State Federation of Labor. These people called on him, but he said to them, “You can kill me, that’s for sure, but as long as I’m alive and President of this Great Labor Organization, you’ll never get control of Labor in the State of Illinois.[30]

By the fall of 1949, Reuben was arguably at his most challenging hour. His best friend and closest collaborator Vic Olander had died, he’d spent considerable political capital on the losing candidate for governor, his executive board was in disarray, and the “Green Gravy Train” political scandal implicated people inside his own organization. There were even rumors that Fern Rauch, the man he’d expelled from ISFL in January, was planning to challenge his leadership at the coming convention.

REUBEN REDOUBLES HIS EFFORTS

Acts as Advocate for the Injured, Women Workers, and the Unemployed

As the political walls seemed to be closing in, Reuben decided to redouble his efforts and focus on his duties as ISFL president. First on his list was securing new and improved benefits for working men and women injured on the job. As the 1949 legislative season opened, Reuben oversaw the introduction of legislation providing for a 30% increase in the Illinois Workman’s Compensation and Occupational Disease Acts. A third bill, HB 29, actually combined the two Acts, creating a seamless garment of care for the working sick and injured.[31] To secure these benefits, Reub did what he did better than anybody else—he worked directly with the other side to argue for an increase. That spring Reuben entered complex negotiations with Alan Gordon of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, convening a conference under the auspices of the Industrial Affairs sub-committee.[32] After months of complicated talks, Reub finally convinced industry groups to agree on a new bill to increase the weekly benefits to sick and injured workers by 15.4%. Spokesmen for the AFL, CIO, and the United Mine Workers all hailed the results, calling it the “best possible” of solutions.[33]

Reuben didn’t stop there. All through the legislative session he worked the halls of Springfield, loudly advocating for society’s weakest members. He secured new improvements in the old age assistance act, raising maximums from $50 to $65 a month. He increased unemployment maximums from $20 to $25 per week. He won new benefits for widows, lifting the award from $7,150 to $8,500 when there were four or more children. Most importantly to Reuben, he fought off a last minute effort to weaken the Child Labor Act, preventing Senator A.L. Marovitz of Chicago from introducing a new round of exemptions on the final day of the General Assembly near the close of an all-night session.[34]

Soderstrom also continued to push for women’s rights and representation, doubling his efforts in the wake of the death of famed women’s rights advocate and personal friend Agnes Nestor in December of 1948. He sought passage of an improved Equal Pay Bill, advocating for HB 222 and reporting on its status almost weekly in his ISFL Newsletter, declaring “women everywhere are looking to the General Assembly for fair treatment in the industrial world[35] When conservative legislators balked at the idea that women could perform as ably as men in all fields, Reuben shot back in testimony before the House, “There are those who believe that there are certain operations in industry which can be performed better by women than by men and that it logically follows that women should receive better pay than men in these special activities.”[36] Reub also strove to be inclusive with respect to women within his own organization as well. When Vice President Earl McMahon was promoted to Secretary Treasurer, Reub appointed Madge King of the United Garment workers to fill the vacancy.[37] Agnes O’Connor, head of the Boot and Shoe Workers Union and one of the most prominent women’s rights activists in Illinois, personally wrote Reub on this selections:

Dear Brother Soderstrom (I’m not writing out your official title),

Let me most sincerely thank you and congratulate you on your selection of Madge King for the Executive Board. I knew you would make a good appointment, and she being a downstate person balances the Ex. Bd. Earl McMahon, too, is a fine appointment, and hope he will eventually give full time to the job. To me, it just don’t seem possible that both Agnes Nestor and Olander is no more with us. But the work must go on.

Thanking you and Best Wishes,
Agnes J. O’Connor[38]

Reub, who was still as overwhelmed by Olander’s loss as O’Connor was by Nestor’s passing, wrote back:

Dear Mrs. O’Connor:

Replying to yours of the 4th inst.

There are so many puzzling matters attached to guiding a great State Federation of Labor successfully, that sometimes I am amazed that working people are able to do as well as we do, do. It was good to receive your letter of congratulations with respect to Executive Board appointments. Thank you very much.

With every good wish, I remain, Your friend,
Reuben G. Soderstrom President[39]

Ultimately, Reuben failed to secure passage for the new Equal Pay Act. He was, however, able to win passage of generous increases in pay for school teachers, a field at the time populated predominately by women.[40] “I want to say to this group, that the Department of Education appreciates and gets a great deal of satisfaction out of the support that this organization has given to our department on many occasions,” said Vernon L. Nickell, superintendent of Public Instruction for Illinois, to the delegates of the ISFL convention later that year. “It has been due, to a large part, to the help and support through your great representative here Reuben Soderstrom, that we have been able to secure good school legislation. He has supported on every occasion our demands for increased school aid from the state level.”[41]

By the time the sixty-sixth General Assembly adjourned, Soderstrom could credibly point to an impressive string of successes within Illinois, even while national efforts to enact a pro-labor legislative agenda floundered. In truth, Reub’s record in Springfield stood in stark contrast to national efforts; all attempts to repeal Taft-Hartley met with failure, despite labor’s success at the polls. His ability to produce such benefit increases was even more remarkable when one considered the national economic picture. In 1949, unemployment sharply spiked; Soderstrom’s successes had eome at the moment when wage-earners needed them most.[42]

Reuben’s vigilance didn’t stop at the statehouse, however. As President of the ISFL, he spent a considerable portion of his time advocating for individual members who wrote to him with problems regarding their benefits. A substantial number of these requests concerned treatment workers received at the hands of local Unemployment Compensation agencies. That May Reub sent a message to all ISFL members, encouraging them to write him with their problems:

It has come to the attention of the officers of the Illinois State Federation of Labor that some State employees in charge of local Unemployment Compensation agencies and duties have been mean, discourteous and officious in their treatment of working people when they have applied for their unemployment compensation. Any unfair attitude, unwarranted delay in providing unemployment benefits to qualified workers, or any unnecessary inconvenience or discourtesy from public servants of this character is indefensible and reprehensible and should be reported at once. Such treatment of unemployed workers should not and will not be tolerated by the A.F. of L. branch of the Illinois Labor movement, which constitutes a large section of the taxpayers who foot the bill to meet the payroll of public employees. Complaints should be filed with R.G. Soderstrom, President, Illinois State Federation of Labor, 503 Security Building, Springfield, Illinois.[43]

It wasn’t long before a flood of complaints overwhelmed Reub’s tiny Springfield office. Letters such as the one from Paul McKleroy, a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, was a typical example:

Dear Brother:

In regard to your letter of May 14, 1949, I have one question regarding the legality of a form “Illinois Public Aid Commission Statement of Income and Expenses” IFAQ Form SS-158 (rev. 9-28-48), form enclosed. This form was sent to me in regard to my Father receiving an Old Age Assistance check each month. He had received such assistance since 1943 and they have just gotten around to this now.

The office in Cumberland County not only sent me this form but sent some irritating letter also in regard to this matter which I have. My Father and I made a trip into this office for further information regarding this matter. I was told during this interview that a sworn affidavit would be sufficient for this matter, just a few days later I received a letter saying the affidavit would not be acceptable. On June 1st he did not receive his assistance check and has not as yet received same…

My Dad and Mother with what little help I could give them have made a briar patch into a moderately livable home, they are people who take care of every little thing, therefore it looks like a lot more than it is. Any help I can get in this matter will be appreciated.[44]

No matter how busy he was or how long it took, Reuben responded to each and every of the men and women he represented. As he later described:

We have a vast number of pieces of correspondence that comes into the President’s office. Sometimes they’ll run as high as 85 pieces of correspondence in the day. So I devote my mornings pretty much to taking care of the correspondence. No letter remains in my office more than one day if I can help it. So that these people who take the time out to write to me have an opportunity to have a reply.[45]

This was Reuben at his best. Throughout his entire life, Reuben had demonstrated the repeated ability to take the personal tragedies that had befallen him—a youth lost to child labor, lack of a formal education, parents haunted by impoverishment—and use them as motivation to fight for public policies that would protect and better the lives of those who faced similar challenges. There is a clear direct line connecting Reuben’s personal experiences and his struggle for child labor laws, public education, and old-age assistance. When the courts hit him with injunctions, Reuben didn’t just fight the court order; he took on the entire system, ending unfair injunctions for everyone. Even Soderstrom’s support for equal pay for women generally and good pay for teachers specifically could be traced to the experiences of the working women in his life, including his daughter Jeanne who was by 1949 struggling to earn a living wage as a teacher in a small one-room school in Streator. Simply put, when something bad happened to Reuben or to those he loved, he set out to make it better not just for them, but for everyone in a similar situation.

Honored by Jewish Workers

One of the personal experiences that most profoundly affected Reuben was the faith of his father. John Soderstrom’s Christianity was a practical one, a religion shaped not by doctrine or dogma but by what he would define as the message of Christ—compassion for those in need and a life lived in service to others. This impacted Reuben in two major ways. First, he saw a deep and abiding connection between his work as a labor leader and the calling of a preacher. He always invited multiple ministers to speak at the annual labor conventions, and typically opened his keynote speech with language either implicitly or (more often) explicitly connecting the messages of the Bible with labor. 1949 was no exception; as he professed to the assembled delegates that year:

I want to thank the representatives of the churches who appeared upon this opening program and who prayed so earnestly for the success of our deliberations. Our records show that representatives of the churches have always been in attendance at each of our annual conventions…The practical Christianity created by the labor movement has many staunch supporters and champions among church leaders, and organized labor, in turn, believes in human brotherhood and subscribes to the teachings of the Lowly Nazarene as presented to us by the representatives of the churches at each of our national conventions.[46]

As Bob Gibson, a later ally of Reub’s, recounted in an interview:

Reub compared [being president] to being a priest. We’re here to help other people. It takes dedication to do more than you were hired to do. It takes motivation. Religious leaders had an influence on Reub… Sometimes people would come to me and be like, “Are we going to have another damn priest today?” and I’d say, “Well, these are his friends.” It wasn’t political. Reub felt his job was equal to a priest caring for his flock. You have to believe in yourself, you have to believe in what you’re doing or it won’t work.[47]

Father Donahue would indeed speak that year upon invitation. He and Reub had a close personal friendship and affection, despite the fact the Reub himself was not Catholic. In fact, it is not clear that Reuben closely identified with any particular denomination, and it was this pluralistic character that constituted the second hallmark of his faith. Reub could find common ground with men of different denominations and faiths, a trait that helped him easily find common cause with organizations like the Catholic Church or the Jewish Federation.

This expansive view of fraternity also endeared him to the Jewish trade union movement. In 1949 Reuben instructed the officers of the ISFL to participate in the Illinois Trade Union division of Histadrut, the organization of trade unions in the newly formed state of Israel. It was a move which the organization’s Chairman Samuel Gassman claimed “is giving heart to the members of our committee to further its humanitarian aims.”[48] In appreciation, he asked Soderstrom to head his organization as Honorary Chairman; the following month Reuben was also named Honorary Vice-Chairman of the National Committee for Labor Israel.[49] On December 8, 1949, the Israel Histadrut Campaign held a luncheon at Chicago’s La Salle Hotel in honor of Reuben and his efforts on Israel’s behalf. A small, intimate group of the AFL Chicago leadership attended, as did National Committee for Labor Israel Treasurer Max Zaritsky. Addressing the group assembled on his behalf, Reuben said:

May I say this on my own behalf and with respect to my own experience—that all of my life I have tried to be of service, of genuine service, to my fellow man and particularly to my fellow worker. In the early days, like most of those who are assembled here today, I was at times knocked around from pillar to post and denied the right to earn a livelihood at my calling or at my craft because of labor and political activities, yet it has given me extreme satisfaction to be of service and all that I ask of my fellow man, all that I ask of my fellow workers assembled here today, is that I be permitted to continue in that service under the guidance and with your cooperation as your friend and your honorary chairman of the Illinois trade union division of Israel Histadrut campaign.[50]

Chastened but Renewed

Ultimately, Rauch decided not to run against Reuben at the ISFL convention that year. The crisis caused by the Post-Dispatch discoveries also abated, at least for the most part. Carl Soderstrom and John Walker, Reub’s son and mentor, respectively, emerged with their reputations largely unscathed because they were not elected officials and most likely operated as retained consultants. Earl McMahon, however, was a different case. Unlike Carl and Walker, he had accepted the governor’s payments while serving as an ISFL vice president, which was in clear violation of the group’s charter. At the 1949 convention, a resolution demanding an immediate special election to fill Olander’s unexpired term was proposed.[51] While the official reason cited for the election was the many responsibilities McMahon already held, the “Green gravy train” payments McMahon received were likely the real reason behind the call. Reub was able to stop the resolution on the grounds that the regular election would come before any special election could be held, allowing McMahon to quietly resign the following spring.[52] Instead, the delegates passed a resolution demanding complete lists of those on the state payrolls—an implicit rebuke of ISFL leadership. As the Bloomington Pantagraph reported:

In passing the resolution, the convention delegates over-ruled the resolution committee. It was the first time that a convention committee recommendation was turned down. The committee opposed the measure because, members said, “undoubtedly” the names of some labor leaders with legitimate state jobs would appear on such a list and it would “make it possible to hold them up to public scorn.” But delegates disagreed with the committee. “We know it’s necessary to have payrollers,” said Lloyd Butterfield of the Will County Central Trades and Labor Council, which sponsored the resolution. “But we want to know who our friends and who our enemies are.” Butterfield continued, “This is not a government of secrets. We’re entitled to know who is on the payroll…” The overwhelming approval of the resolution, followed by applause from the floor, was one of the few times that the convention departed from the strict routine of okaying committee recommendations.[53]

Soderstrom thus emerged from the 1949 convention—and 1949 as a whole—chastened but renewed. He had faced an unprecedented series of personal losses, rough battles, costly attacks, and a scandal in the governor’s office. But in the end he had survived, as always, retaining the loyalty of those he served as President and ready for the fight to come. As he proclaimed in his Labor Day address:

A review of the record of the past makes it clear that there is no good reason for pessimism with respect to the present or the future…Today the labor movement has a membership of about sixteen million wage earners. Today we are strong and experienced. We know how to steer clear of the legal rocks and weather the storm.[54]

* * *