SILVER LION

Reuben couldn’t take his eyes off the gavel. It was beautiful, of course; but then all of the 24 gavels he’d received presiding over the Illinois State Federation of Labor Convention were gorgeous, carefully-crafted works of art. They had come in all shapes and sizes, each with their own unique contours, curves, and quirks; yet he knew immediately that this one would hold a special place in his heart. It wasn’t just the hammer’s smooth lines, attractive dark-stained wood, or detailed design. It was the middle, wrapped in lustrous silver, commemorating his 25th anniversary as leader of the Illinois Federation. Inscribed upon the metal band was a tribute which read:

To Reuben G Soderstrom with appreciation for his 25 years of judicial and dedicated service as presiding officer of the Illinois State Federation of Labor Conventions. Presented by the Tri-City Federation of Labor at the 73rd Annual Convention, held in the State Armory, Rock Island, October 10-14, 1955.[1]

Holding it high for the assembled delegates to see, Tri-City Federation President John DeYoung took his opportunity as convention host and temporary chairman to speak for a moment about his memories of the man the gavel honored before he formally relinquished it to its proper owner:

I speak of a man who twenty-five years ago took over the reins of the labor movement in Illinois. I recollect distinctly, I sat with him in the lobby of the Leland Hotel that afternoon when the Executive Board chose him to follow John Walker...These 25 years have been remarkable in the progress of labor in the state of Illinois due to the huge membership, their loyalty, and competent leadership, particularly at the head of our state organization. The state has grown in prestige as to labor matters, political, legal, and otherwise, legislative achievements for labor, all through this leadership…

Words cannot be found to express what I want to do at this moment. We have a gavel for the man whose name I shall have to mention at the finish and not now, a gavel prepared particularly for this anniversary, the 25th anniversary…the gavel itself is one that represents the honor and respect of the entire labor movement of his state…It is a beautiful emblem that I know he will preserve for years to come, along with 24 other gavels in the past. I now present to you, to take over, your friend and my friend, Reuben Soderstrom![2]

Upon hearing Reuben’s name the assembly arose, offering an extended ovation as the man of the hour accepted his gavel and assumed the chair. Despite his 67 years, Soderstrom was still every inch the lion of labor, stout, pugnacious, and powerful. His full head of hair, bright flowing silver, still shook when he passionately spoke in praise of labor or denounced its enemies. In this moment, however, the rambunctious orator was stilled with humility. As he took to the podium, he reaffirmed the promise he made to the delegates when he first chaired the convention a quarter-century ago:

I want to express my thanks to the temporary chairman for this very attractive union-made gavel. While gavels are symbolic of authority, in labor conventions they are used merely for the purpose of tapping the announcement that a conclusion has been reached or that an issue has been settled. There will be no misuse of this gavel during this week of deliberations here in the city of Rock Island. In this convention, as in all of the great conventions in the past, every delegate will be treated fairly and impartially by your presiding officer. Every delegate has the right to be heard and every issue will be settled in a democratic fashion by a majority vote of the delegates in attendance.[3]

This pledge to democratic governance was one that Soderstrom took very seriously. Although he at times used his power to place ISFL support behind leaders and positions that were not popular, Reuben always took care to act within the limits of his authority. Moreover, Soderstrom had demonstrated the ability to separate his personal desires and agenda from those of the Federation, consistently subordinating the former to the sake of the latter. This was a large part of the reason why he had been able to survive for so long, particularly in a state so often characterized by the rise of strong men inevitably felled by revelations of greed and abuse. In a world filled with corruption, Soderstrom remained an honest man.

It was a trait that Reuben, and the nation, needed now more than ever. It was in 1955 that a Montgomery seamstress refused to surrender her seat because of the color of her skin, sparking a bus boycott that stirred some to protest and others to violence. It was the year that the United States first sent a Military Assistance Advisory Group to South Vietnam. It was the year that Disneyland opened, marking a new era of imagination and celebration of childhood innocence. In Illinois, it was the year that Cook County Chairman Richard J. Daley became the new Mayor of Chicago. And in the world of work, it was the year that the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), rivals since the latter’s creation in 1935, finally, formally united.

REUNIFICATION

The Short Route

The impact of the reunification of the AFL and CIO, both real and imagined, cannot be overstated. For twenty years these two organizations had been at each other’s throats, and not just on the national level. Everyday rank and file members of these two organizations frequently attacked one another, often in violent fashion. As future Illinois AFL-CIO President Bob Gibson, then a rank-and-file member of the CIO, later described in an interview:

Was there animosity? Oh hell yeah! I remember they got to shooting people’s windows out at night (well, we didn’t use real bullets). It was everybody. It was every dirty trick you could think of, shooting ‘em or throw a can of paint on their front porch, something like that. Flat tires…kind of like at Halloween, things kids would do, grown men were doing.[4]

Much of this antagonism was fueled by conflicts over jurisdiction, fights to see which union would get to represent the workers at a given factory or business. Although they theoretically represented two different spheres of work—the AFL was organized along craft lines, while the CIO organized by industry—by 1955 the distinction was largely academic. When workers at a plant decided to organize, more often than not they could choose between two nearly identical unions—one backed by the AFL and the other by the CIO. Rival unions would also frequently conduct “raids,” going in to factories that were already organized by the opposition and agitating for them to switch affiliation. “It was more jurisdictional questions,” Gibson explained. “These were men fighting over turf. Everybody thinks ‘this is our jurisdiction and we’ll settle it.’”[5]

This intra-labor squabbling was no small matter. It was not only widespread but largely fruitless, successful only in increasing animosity. As then-CIO lawyer Arthur Goldberg wrote in his history of the AFL-CIO merger:

During the two-year period, January 1, 1951, to December 31, 1952, there were 1,246 cases which could clearly fall within the definition of a raid….In all, 366,470 workers were involved. The most significant fact was that of these 366,470 workers the petitioning union was successful in defeating the recognized union in cases involving only 62,504 workers, or approximately 17 percent…Of these 62,000 workers who changed over from one federation to another, some 35,000 were taken by an AFL union from a CIO union, while the CIO unions were able, on their part, to capture 27,000 workers from the AFL. The net change in affiliation over this two-year period thus involved no more than 8,000 workers, or less than 2 percent of the total number of workers involved.[6]

This destructive cycle finally began to change in 1953, when for the first time both organizations signed a no-raiding agreement, essentially a cease-fire that allowed both parties to demonstrate good faith. A few short months after the agreement went into effect, a Unity Committee comprised of AFL President Meany, CIO President Reuther, their Secretary-Treasurers, and a few others met at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. By the end of their meeting, both presidents surprisingly announced their intension to create “a single trade union center…which will preserve the integrity of each affiliated national and international union.”[7] These words were quickly followed with decisive action. On February 5, 1955, the Unity Committee met again in Miami to decide on the mechanism and timeframe of the proposed merge. As Goldberg, who was present at the meeting, later recounted:

George Meany suggested that the basic issue to be solved at this meeting was whether to merge into a single trade-union center. This, Meany indicated, could be done either by the “short” way or the “long” way. By “short,” he explained, he meant bringing each affiliated union into the trade union center as-is, with its integrity protected, and with future union mergers to be worked out by voluntary means. The “long” way was to seek to settle all conflicts in advance of the merger. The reaction of all negotiators, both AFL and CIO, was immediate and unanimous. All desired the “short” way—merger now.[8]

The heady mix of hope and anxiety in the room must have been palpable. Everyone in attendance believed they were at a crossroads, a fragile pause in the decades of enmity that could itself end in a breath, and they dare not lose the moment. They hastily drafted a resolution that afternoon, and before 5pm that evening they had decided to conclude the merger by year’s end. They were committed to the cause, full speed ahead, leaving the details for later. For local leaders like Reub and those he represented, those details—and the devils contained therein—would prove problematic for years to come.

Reuben Rendezvous with History

The potential power of unified labor delighted its friends, terrified its enemies, and fascinated all. The famed labor journalist Victor Riesel wrote just days after the February announcement:

The just-wedded AFL and CIO will inevitably become the single most influential industrial and political force in the land within a few years. Even without the millions of additional members the merged labor federation will pick up in the organizing drives it will soon unleash in the south and southwest, it has great power. The coalition has over 16,000,000 members who will provide its national headquarters with $7,200,000 annually, mostly for organizing work. At the same time, the new Council of Industrial Organization department will have an additional $3,600,000 a year for its own budget and its own organizing campaigns. This means a total of almost $11,000,000 as a yearly operational budget for the new organization…The joining of the AFL and CIO is not just the return of some unions to the fold. It is the beginning of a period in history when labor swaps the lunchbox for the briefcase.[9]

Anti-labor forces, meanwhile, decried the merger as a “labor monopoly.” According to the president of the National Association of Manufacturers (the parent group of the IMA):

Businessmen are concerned because it seems to them this move points to a speedup of tendencies toward monopolistic labor practices…I have found that businessmen believe labor unions, even without a merger, have become a potent force politically and economically. The belief is that the merger will increase the monopolistic potential.[10]

Business’s answer, predictably, was a return to the old injunction days, when businesses could use anti-trust laws to break up strikes. They also pushed for so-called “right to work” laws, new legislation built on the “open shop” acts of the 1920s, drafted to prevent unions from collecting dues in a union-represented shop. This was particularly problematic as such unions were legally bound to advocate for all workers, not just dues-paying members. These bills were designed to strip unions of funding while simultaneously robbing paying members of their benefits—after all, why would you pay to join the union if you could receive its protection for free?

For the moment, however, the barbs and threats of business failed to dampen the excitement of labor’s reunification, or slow its pace. Reuben greeted the news with unqualified joy. As he wrote in that year’s Illinois Department of Labor publication, the Illinois Blue Book:

The merger of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization was the outstanding economic and industrial event of the year 1955…It is too early to attempt an appraisal of all the advantages and benefits that can, and will, be attained from this consolidation into one great National Federation of almost 16,000,000 members, with ten percent of them employed and functioning within the borders of Illinois. It will immediately strengthen the hand of labor in the field of negotiations and legislation for the benefit of the worker and the public.[11]

Much work remained, however. The February 5 resolution that sparked so many hopes and fears was a mere two sentences long.[12] Subsequent negotiations, primarily by CIO General Counsel Arthur Goldberg and AFL Vice President (and Chicago son) Matthew Woll, had produced a more detailed agreement, followed by a draft constitution that was tentatively approved by the AFL Executive Council on May 3[13]. Yet one of the biggest tasks—determining what the actual policies of this new Federation would be—had yet to be addressed. Meany and Reuther knew that discussion over such details had the potential to derail the undertaking in its infancy; this was the very reason they had opted for the “short road.” Such policy positions would have to be approved by convention, not by Executive Committee. Approval from the close-knit council was one thing; drafting a proposal which could succeed at a convention, in contrast, was another matter altogether. While the leadership was eager for the merger, popular sentiment was still unclear. How could the council win the support of men who’d spent years shooting out each other’s windows? President Meany needed someone with experience, talent, and most importantly the respect of his peers. He knew just whom to call: Reuben Soderstrom.

A week before the AFL Executive Council formally approved the new constitution, AFL President Meany and CIO President Walter Reuther each selected three of their most trusted men to craft the governing policies of the new Federation, which would be voted on by the entirety of the new body at the proposed merged AFL-CIO convention that December. Reuther picked his CIO Secretary-Treasurer and International Electric, Radio, and Machine Workers President James Carey, CIO VP and US Steelworkers President David McDonald, and CIO VP and President of the National Maritime Union Joseph Curran—arguably the most powerful members of the CIO leadership. Meany chose Matthew Woll, the AFL’s top lawyer, as chairman of the proposed committee. Next he appointed George Harrison, the President of the influential Brotherhood of Railway Clerks who had been a part of AFL-CIO reunification efforts as far back as 1936.[14] When it came time to choose a third member, however, Meany didn’t pick another of his Vice Presidents, or one of the International Presidents who controlled the nations’ powerful unions. He chose ISFL President Reuben Soderstrom.

In terms of qualifications, Soderstrom’s selection made perfect sense. As a long-serving President of one of the largest state organizations in the AFL, Reuben had considerable experience in managing conventions and passing resolutions. Further, as former legislator and Secretary of the AFL Convention Committee on Resolutions, he had been drafting legislation and resolutions before the CIO even existed. He had spent years settling intra-labor disputes as a special envoy. Perhaps most importantly, Reuben was respected by the leadership of both the AFL and the CIO. Even Joe Germano, head of the Illinois CIO, described Soderstrom to his peers as “someone we can live with. Reub’s a nice guy. Believe me, his word is good.”[15]

Still, it was an unconventional choice. Simply put, state figures weren’t placed in these positions of authority. National appointments were almost always reserved for International Presidents, who had their own constituencies and bases of power. They were the ones with the authority to call industry-wide strikes, and often commanded considerable funds. State presidents, in contrast, typically managed through “soft power” and operated under comparably small budgets. Reuben, for his part, took his ISFL’s ability to run on modest means as a matter of pride, boasting that he hadn’t raised membership dues once in his quarter century of leadership.[16] Likewise, in his 25 years as ISFL President, Soderstrom never once called for a strike; his role in this regard was to give support to those who were on strike and to encourage other unions in the state to do likewise. Conversely, when Reub viewed it in labor’s interest to refrain from striking, he couldn’t force his membership back to work; he could only encourage or discourage.

Despite these restrictions—or perhaps, because of them—Reuben had emerged as one of the nation’s most influential leaders of labor. He had more than quadrupled ISFL membership in his time at its helm, keeping them united even through labor’s darkest days.[17] While the wave of strikes that rocked the nation in the years after the Second World War resulted in new legislative restrictions for most of labor, Reuben had successfully held the line in Illinois, keeping his state largely strike-free. In return, he wrung crucial support from the state’s traditionally anti-labor governor, ultimately making Illinois practically the only major industrial state in which no anti-labor laws were enacted.[18] This ability to achieve unity without coercion—discipline without dictate—was exactly what Meany needed in this moment. And so on July 25, 1955, the AFL President sent notice to Soderstrom that he had picked him to help craft “declarations designed to reach an understanding as to common policy on those questions for the merged A.F. of L. and C.I.O.”[19] Reuben jumped at the opportunity, immediately writing the labor President to accept and thank him for “including me… for honoring me with a place on this important Committee.”[20] Woll, Meany’s right hand and a close associate of Reuben’s, greeted the choice with satisfaction. On August 1, he sent Reub a letter which read in part:

Dear friend Rube:

Last week, President Meany informed me that he had selected you, me, and George Harrison, President of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, as a committee to study policies heretofore declared by the A. F. of L. We are to meet with a like committee of the C.I.O. to consider and endeavor to come to an agreed report outlining policies that should govern the proposed Federation of Labor and which would meet with the approval of the merged Federation and its contemplated first Convention this December…I am requesting the research people at the A. F. of L. office and Chairmen of the several committees to prepare for us a statement on policies that have heretofore governed the A. F. of L. in such matters as housing, education, taxation, social security, community services, international labor relations, wages, hours, legislative and political action, etc., etc…[21]

Over the next several months, Reuben worked closely with Woll to prepare for the momentous meeting, exchanging letters on procedure, tactics, and the like. Finally, on Monday November 7, 1955, Reuben took the train from his Springfield offices to Chicago, staying there for the night before flying to New York for the historic meeting.[22] In the days that followed, he worked with his CIO counterparts David McDonald, Joseph Curran, and James Carey to craft a comprehensive set of AFL-CIO policies that could be passed by a full convention that December. They discussed everything from public housing policy to proper tax rates to targeted wage and hour legislation, finding a present balance between their respective prior positions.[23] Ultimately, they emerged with a set of documents breathtaking in scope and speed—the comprehensive policy positions of the brand-new AFL-CIO.

Bringing Unity to Illinois

When the AFL and CIO held their first joint convention in December that year in New York City, it was Reuben who was given the honor of making the motion to officially unite “these two great national organizations into one united federation on the national level.”[24] As Reuben later described the momentous occasion in his report on the convention:

The atmosphere of the closing hours of the AFL convention was charged with a dramatic feeling that something new and extremely satisfactory was happening. Before closing President Meany himself announced the CIO’s vote. The more than 800 delegates broke out in cheers, whistles and foot stomping. And well they might. The merger is charged with terrific potential economic and political possibilities and all of them good for wage-earners.[25]

With the merger between the two national bodies complete, attention turned to the labor organizations of each state. Back home in Illinois, Reuben touted the benefits a merger would bring to all Illinois workers. The Southern Illinoisan led its coverage of Reub’s opening address the following morning with his vocal support for reunification:

Addressing the opening session of the 73rd annual convention of the federation today in the Armory here, Soderstrom said that in the political field, with the merger, “workers will have an enlarged opportunity to work together, in closer unity and more unitedly than ever before”…Soderstrom said the merger “will bring many advantages to wage-earners and to the public and to America itself.” He added that “this merger is full with terrific potential, economic and political possibilities and benefits.”[26]

Reub reiterated his call for a merger of the Illinois Federation and CIO later that week. “Labor should be working together in closer unity, and more unitedly than ever before,” he told the delegates. “That opportunity looms upon the horizon now that the merger between the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations is about to be consummated.”[27]

Then, Soderstrom did something which had never done in the entirety of his presidency. Pausing for a moment, Reuben welcomed a representative of the CIO, once the ISFL’s greatest rival, a group which had once called for Reuben’s removal and the very dissolution of the ISFL itself. Though the presence of a CIO man at an Illinois Federation Convention was unprecedented, the embrace of a former rival was nothing new to the ISFL President, and he welcomed his guest with genuine warmth and reconciliation:

We are honored this afternoon with having a representative of the CIO on this platform. He has come here, he tells me, to extend the greetings of that great organization to the Illinois State Federation of Labor, and it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present to you Brother Pat Greathouse, the Regional Director of the CIO.[28]

Brother Pat took to the stage to applause, paying honor to the man his predecessor had once called a corrupt racketeer. While he acknowledged the differences of the two organizations, he echoed Reub’s optimism that their common goals undermined any real obstacles to reunification, telling the audience:

We must band together. We must band together to build an organization, an organization designed to work, based upon issues, with other groups in the state of Illinois, farm groups and other groups, to bring about a liberalized program within the framework of both of the major political parties, so that we can build not only a labor movement that we are proud of, but that we can build legislation on the social front, and all of the other fronts that affect us directly and indirectly, at the local level, at the state level, and at the national level.[29]

Amidst all the action and optimism, Reuben felt certain the merger at the state level in Illinois would be a quick one. As he proudly proclaimed in the Illinois Blue Book that year:

This merger will increase the membership of the Illinois State Federation of Labor and will be completed on the state level by October, 1956. Numerical strength and elimination of rivalries will broaden the power and influence of the united Illinois labor movement.[30]

Unfortunately for both Reub and Illinois labor, this prediction would prove wildly over-confident. While the national merger was complete, the fight to reunify Illinois had just begun.

LEGISLATIVE GAINS

Compensation and Safety Wins

Soderstrom, for his part, had already put those words into action. For the first time, he invited Maurice McElligott and John Alesia, Secretary-Treasurer and Legislative Representative of the Illinois CIO, respectively, to join him at the bargaining table opposite the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association to negotiate new Workmen’s Compensation and Occupational Disease benefits. For years, this “agreed bills” process of negotiating benefits for sick and injured workers, conducted under the authority of the General Assembly, had been the responsibility of the ISFL, and Reuben had jealously guarded his organization’s right to be the sole authority representing labor. But now, with the merger imminent, Reuben asked the CIO and the United Mine Workers (represented by Luther German) to join him.[31] With labor thusly united, they made unprecedented gains for workers. Before the close of the 1955 General Assembly, the combined group had secured historic increases in Occupational Disease and Workman’s Compensation benefits. As Reuben boasted:

An impressive number of beneficial measures helpful to working people were enacted into law—the most important of which was an increase of 18.2 percent in the benefits of the Occupational Disease and Workmen’s Compensation Acts. This is the largest boost ever attained at one time in the history of this legislation.[32]

Soderstrom was ecstatic. In private correspondence, he referred to it as “the best news of the year,” bragging to the Secretary of the Illinois Council of Carpenters that:

The Illinois State Federation of Labor succeeded in twisting out of the representatives of the employer the largest increase in Occupational Disease and Workmen’s Compensation benefits ever secured at one time in Illinois, or, for that matter, any other State.[33]

Of course, labor unity wasn’t the only reason for the advances in compensation legislation. In typical fashion, Soderstrom had taken last year’s defeat and turned it to his advantage. Reactionary elements in 1953 had thwarted attempts by Reub and his son, State Representative Carl Soderstrom, to pass a bill that would have trained laborers in workplace safety and best practices. They instead sent the Soderstroms’ safety concerns to a committee for “further study,” a fate generally considered a political graveyard.

Reuben, however, took it as an opportunity. While his opponents dismissed and ignored the committee, Soderstrom remained actively involved, giving particular attention to their key findings and recommended courses of action. The commission, unsurprisingly, found that safe work environments and safety education programs could greatly reduce accidents, saving workers their health and employers their money. Reub then convinced Governor Stratton to give his blessing to the committee’s recommendations, ensuring that any and all legislation based on them would be personally tied to the Republican Governor’s office. Thus armed, Soderstrom argued that the savings business could expect to see if they implemented safety procedures should be directed to increased payouts in Workmen’s Compensation and Occupational Disease:

A commission created by the legislature two years ago to study educational methods designed to prevent industrial accidents and save lives has completed its work. The Governor of Illinois has placed his blessing upon the Commission’s recommendations. Labor has contended for some time that a general 25% reduction in accidents should result in a corresponding increase in benefits. It looks like this can be given to us now without much additional cost to the employer…over and above everything else we want a 25% boost in benefits.

Illinois manufacturers and their associates tried to protest, but to no avail. Reub had the Republican governor on his side; even after negotiation the IMA had no choice but to acquiesce to the biggest increase in Illinois history. Reuben saw this not just as a win for workers but as a vindication of the “agreed bill” approach to compensation legislation that he had forged:

The Illinois method of negotiating improvements in the Occupational Disease and Workmen’s Compensation laws is not only good procedure but is actually proper legislative procedure. In over forty years of experience no better arrangement has been found. It becomes a notable victory for the Illinois State Federation of Labor, the pioneer in this field, and also a very satisfactory achievement for the C.I.O. and all other labor groups who sat in the recent conference.[34]

Soderstrom didn’t stop there. With the Governor’s blessing in hand, Reub ensured the introduction of a host of safety bills, five in all, which would revolutionize workplace safety in Illinois. HB 1085 through 1089 called for the creation of a Division of Safety Inspections and Education, operating under the direction of the Illinois Department of Labor. They likewise instituted a Safety Education Commission, also IDOL directed, for the purpose of protecting workers exposed to hazardous working conditions.[35] To fund all this, the bills called for $120,000 in appropriation for ordinary and contingent expenses.[36]

All of this went far beyond the mere creation of the IDOL safety programs to which Reub’s Republican foes had so strenuously objected; they never could have imagined when they defeated Soderstrom’s bill two years ago that it would result in anything close to this. Every time they tried to object, however, Reub used the commission’s findings and the governor’s support like a cudgel, beating down all opposition. They were powerless. The bills passed both the House and Senate, and by the time of the ISFL Convention IDOL, Director Cummins was proud to report to the delegates:

This session of legislation, I think, will be remembered particularly for its creation of the Division of Safety Inspection and Education in the Department of Labor which will greatly strengthen the administration of industrial safety laws in the State…I do not know what the working men and women in this State of Illinois would do if you did not have such men as Reub Soderstrom. I have watched him and Stan Johnson…when I see them down in Springfield in the legislature, running all over the building from the Senators to this one and that one, stopping bad legislation, legislation that is bad for men and women working for a living, I say again that I feel honored to know both of these gentlemen. I want to congratulate them on this 25th anniversary here, and I hope that Reub has a long and prosperous life and we have him for many years to come.[37]

Legislative Losses

While Reub could claim several victories in the 1955 legislature, his son Carl wasn’t as fortunate. Truly, the now-veteran legislator was making gains; in the 1955 session he was appointed Vice-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and served as a member of the Committee on Education, the Liquor Control Committee, and the Industrial Affairs Committee.[38] His most important work, however, remained the crafting and introduction of labor legislation. That year, the younger Soderstrom introduced two bills that he felt to be of singular importance—a minimum wage bill for teachers and an hours bill for firefighters. The teachers’ bill, introduced on March 16, sought to raise the minimum salary for full-time teachers to $3,000 a year, regardless of service or experience, replacing the then-current minimum of $1,200 to $2,600 depending on teacher qualification.[39] Two weeks later, he introduced HB 557, a bill that would shorten the work week of firemen across the state to 56 hours a week, eliminating the 70-84 hour workweek non-Chicago firefighters typically faced (Chicago already had the 56-hour limit in place).[40]

Opposition to both measures was as fierce as it was predictable. Opponents to the teachers’ bill fought against it on fairness grounds, arguing that teachers with higher levels of education should receive higher starting salaries. Carl shot back that they were still free to do so, making front page news with his retort that “We don’t interfere with schoolboards in fixing salary schedules. They can pay as much as they like.[41]” Opponents of the Firemen’s bill, meanwhile, reflexively claimed the bill would force cities to lay off firefighters, the go-to argument against every labor bill.[42] When the ridiculousness of this statement was explored, those against the bill made the more honest argument that the proposed act would force cities to either higher additional fire fighters or lower their protection coverage. Reub’s hometown paper, the Streator Daily Times, explored the impact Carl’s legislation would have on his city:

A bill to reduce the work week of downstate firemen…would cost the city of Streator $11,700 annually if present fire department efficiency were maintained…Streator firemen now work approximately 72 hours weekly. The department is divided into two platoons, alternating 24 hours on duty and 24 hours off…According to Fire Chief William Uebler, three men would have to be added to the Streator department if the 56-hour bill were passed and present on-shift manpower maintained…if the efficiency of the department was weakened by having less firemen on-shift, it is probable that the Illinois Inspection Bureau would recommend a raise in insurance rates in Streator.[43]

The mayors of smaller downstate cities like Streator complained to Carl and his co-sponsors that the bill’s mandate forced them into making an impossible choice: make drastic cuts to their budget to hire more firemen, or put their cities at increased risk. Of course, the basic fault of such reasoning was that these cities were already at risk. No firefighter could be expected to be effective working 72 hour weeks, and the IIB had already warned cities that the failure to reduce hours would result in increased insurance rates. According to the Daily Times:

The Bureau two years ago advocated three more men for the local department, pointing out that a raise in rates could be expected if the recommendation were not complied with. Streator is now rated in class six for fire protection and a drop to seventh class would mean about a $2 annual increase on every $1,000 of fire insurance, Chief Uebler said.[44]

There was nothing unreasonable about reasonable hours, Carl asserted. Nor was this uncharted territory; as Reuben noted in his testimony before the House Municipalities Committee, Chicago firemen had already moved to a 56-hour week without incident.[45]

Still, Carl and his supporters and co-sponsors took pains to address their critics’ concerns. He amended the teachers’ bill to account for qualifications; a teacher with less than 120 semester hours of academic training would begin at $2,700, while those with bachelor’s or master’s degrees would start at $3,000 and $3,200 respectively.[46] For cities concerned about the cost of firemen, he added language to his firemen’s act authorizing cities to add a ½ percent sales tax and a public utility tax designed to benefit cities.[47] With these corrections in place, Carl’s bills soared through the House by near-unanimous margins—92 to 7 for the proposed Teacher’s Minimum Pay Act and 94 to 11 for the Firemen’s Hours Act.

Despite the overwhelming popularity of these bills, opposing forces found ways to quietly defeat them. The Senate failed to hear the teachers’ bill before the end of session, leaving it to die when the session closed. The firemen’s bill did make it through the Senate, but was then vetoed by the Governor, who opposed the very tax provisions Carl had included to win legislative support. The losses were deeply frustrating for Carl, who could barely believe that such fair, just, and obviously popular legislation could fail. Still, like his father, he refused to be cowed. As he told the crowd at the ISFL Conference later that year:

I have been through the mill down there (in Springfield) a little bit in the last six years. These labor bills, because they are our bills and because they are our bread and butter bills, they are fought every inch of the way. If you will pardon the expression, we have our nose rubbed in it all the way. They use every parliamentary trick which is legal that they can think of to get in your way and obstruct labor’s program…(but) I pledge you all of my time, efforts and ability, whatever they may be, as long as I am permitted to serve in the General Assembly. And I want to promise you here and now, ladies and gentlemen, that I will not only vote for your bills, but I will cheerfully sponsor labor legislation as long as I am there![48]

PAYING TRIBUTE

Certainly, 1955 was an historic year for the life of labor. It also marked a milestone in Reuben’s life. The 73rd Annual Illinois State Federation of Labor Conference was the 25th such event Soderstrom would preside over, an achievement those he represented were eager to celebrate. Secretary Johnson took to the stage early both to pay tribute to the man he’d come to know so well and to relate the congratulations and goodwill of others sent by telegram. Everyone from AFL Secretary Schnitzler to the President of the Jewish Trade Unions sent their warm regards, but none of the messages Stanley read touched Reub as deeply as the one he held to the end. Pulling the message from his coat pocket, Johnson told the audience:

Now here is one that I am sure you will like, the friendly and most homely note I think that we will receive because it comes from very close to the President’s heart. There is a little fellow that he has in his family…a grandson called Reuben Soderstrom. He can dote a little about that. When this little fellow was hardly a week old, I asked the President about the newest addition. He said, “He is a little two-fisted, howling, straight upstanding going-to-be labor leader, from the way he acts.” And that was his grandson. Now here is the telegram addressed to the grandfather:

WE ARE ALL PULLING FOR YOU TO HAVE LOTS OF GOOD LUCK AND THE BEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL CONVENTION EVER.

LOVE FROM CARL VIRGINIA SISTER CARL JR. GINNY BOB JANE AND LITTLE REUBEN.[49]

Johnson was followed by Reub’s own son Carl, whose tribute to his father was especially personal and moving:

I wonder if you folks out there can imagine the feeling of humility that encompasses me as I stand before you here today…I have been trying to follow along here in my dad’s footsteps, but I find that the gentlemen wears big shoes and takes big strides. I sometimes find that I rattle around like peas in a pod, perhaps, but I believe that I am getting so I can stay on his path.[50]

One after another, speakers paid homage to the “smiling warrior.” Earl McMahon, ISFL First Vice President and Secretary of the Chicago Building Trades, recounted his earliest remembrance of Reub, back when he was a young man who somehow succeeded in convincing the ISFL Executive Committee that they should hold their giant annual convention in his tiny hometown of Streator:

One of the spokesmen for the City of Streator was a short, stocky impressive sort of fellow who gave a dynamic address on why the convention should be held in Streator the following year. The officers at that time who listened to his impassioned address remarked, “Here is a man destined to go far and should reach great heights as a spokesman for labor.” He concluded his remarks with a poem entitled “Streator on a Saturday Night.” This recitation, given like a gifted elocutionist, brought down the house, and the speaker was given a rousing ovation…

During convention week this man worked far into the night helping to set the type for the proceedings so they would be available the next day, and in spite of his long hours or night work he never failed to be in attendance each day at the convention. Those who work with him recognize ability, not given to many men. It is a privilege to work with him. We are blessed with the greatest and most gifted President of all state federations of labor.[51]

Of all the speeches given on Reuben’s behalf, however, none was more eloquent than that of Father Donahue, the Catholic Priest who had long stood by Reuben’s side both in the fight for labor rights and through Reub’s personal moments of loss and crisis. The Father’s speech proved to be one for the ages; as the Streator Daily Times wrote, “His Streator friends will read with genuine satisfaction and full assent the thought expressed in a tribute paid Mr. Soderstrom at the recent state convention of state federation by the Rev. Joseph L. Donahue (C.S.V.), long-time chaplain of the Chicago Building and Construction Trade Council.”[52] Father Donahue’s message, personal and passionate, began with the words of Israel’s most storied prophet of exile:

In reading the good Book, you will find therein the Prophet Isaiah says: “Speak thou the truth of God to my people with power and courage. Harken not thou to the voice of those who would turn thee aside to the soft and easy ways. For I have set thee to battle for the poor and downtrodden and to withstand the mighty ones who oppress my people.” Those heroic sentiments of the greatest, the boldest, the most uncompromising prophet of ancient Israel describe vividly and perfectly the whole life history of the great man who has been your President for the past 25 years.

It would be gross presumption on my part to attempt a eulogy of Reub Soderstrom after organized labor has placed the stamp of approval upon his work and his character, and nothing would be further from Reub's desires than for me to do so. To some of us Reub is little less than a hero, for the name Reuben Soderstrom stands high on the honor roll of distinguished members of organized labor, who have advanced the cause of the worker, and represents to us achievement, and sterling honor, manhood and courage. It is to inspire and encourage others, and not to praise this illustrious son of organized labor, that these few words are spoken.

My association with the labor movement has brought me close to a great many other wonderful men, and I know that none of the others will be in the least jealous if I put my good friend Reub Soderstrom first of them all. For a good many years I have felt close to him. I want publicly to assert that I have learned much from Reub Soderstrom, who I consider perhaps the finest mind in the American Labor movement. He has been kind and sympathetic and understanding and generous. During these years of an active, energetic, vigorous life, through good report and ill, through calamity, slander and misrepresentation, he has gone up and down the length and breadth of this state to do battle for the poor, the downtrodden, to withstand the mighty ones who oppressed the workers...

He has never reckoned the cost of the service to which he has dedicated his life. He has never counted the odds arrayed against him. He has marched steadily forward with a heart that quailed not, with feet that faltered not, to serve the cause of the little people, who worked to live. And now, Reub, as a citizen of the state of Illinois and as a member of organized labor, I congratulate you heartily on 25 years of fruitful, unselfish, glorious service. I am sure that all present unite with me in hoping and praying that you may have health and strength and length of days to write new chapters of splendid achievement in the book of your illustrious career, and out beyond the bourne of space and time, our hopes still follow you.

When the blazing sun and all the gleaming stars are only burnt out cinders, wheeling their useless bulk through the infinitude of space, when the heavens shall be rolled up like an ancient parchment and time shall be no more, may you stand triumphant, crowned with honor and glory in the midst of the angels and saints of God, and may we all be there to celebrate that immortal jubilee with you. God keep you.[53]

The ISFL transcripts make no note of Reub’s reaction, only the crowd’s applause and Soderstrom’s message of thanks. Still, it’s hard to imagine the silver lion not moved to tears by what had to be one of the most stirring tributes in the history of labor. Who would have known that the book of Reuben’s illustrious career would continue for another 15 productive and fulfilling years?

* * *