A STANDARD-BEARER FOR LABOR

Taking a break from the intractable merger negotiations, Soderstrom joined the rest of Chicago in January of 1958 to welcome President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was a grand affair, eagerly hosted by a city that held a special place in the president’s history—the place where he narrowly defeated the rabidly anti-labor Robert Taft to first become the Republican standard-bearer in the 1952 election.

Now, five and a half years later, the second-term president was returning to the scene of his political birth to pay tribute—and beg funds for the coming congressional election. The main event was a gala fundraiser dinner in the International Amphitheatre’s Donovan Hall, with over 5,100 anticipated guests from across the state willing to pay the $100-a-plate fee to attend. The speaker’s table, a grand dais set against a sea of American flags, faced the masses so as to elevate not only Eisenhower but his honored guests, the top 50 leaders and power-brokers in the state that the president sought to court. It was a night designed for the president to meet his makers; whom he chose to sit with him spoke volumes.

While most of the names on the list—the usual “who’s who” of state and national dignitaries—sparked little interest, one name in particular stood out. Reuben Soderstrom, President of the Illinois State Federation of Labor, was asked alongside Chicago Federation President Bill Lee to join Eisenhower on the dais. Several newspapers including The Chicago American, the Bloomington Pantagraph, and Reuben’s hometown Streator Times Daily Press drew special attention to Soderstrom’s attendance, highlighting the historic invitation of a labor leader to sit at a Republican president’s table. Soderstrom and Lee took care to note that their acceptance did not entail their support of Eisenhower or his policies. “I was invited and I accepted,” he told the press. “I presume I was invited as a representative of organized labor in Chicago and not from any partisan consideration. After all, Mr. Eisenhower is everybody’s president. No, I’m not paying for my ticket.”[1]

The message was clear: Soderstrom and Lee’s attendance was a sign of the growing power of labor. Eisenhower and the Republicans needed labor support, and Reuben’s invitation was a play for it. Perhaps the strongest evidence for this came from labor’s enemies, who strongly denounced Soderstrom’s elevation. Joseph Meek, President of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, labeled the president’s welcome of Reuben “a crude attempt to woo labor,” bitterly complaining that “Farmers are not recognized. Nor is retailing. Nor is business except insofar as those who are prominent in raising money are concerned. The rest are political leaders.”[2]

Meek wasn’t entirely wrong; the Eisenhower invitation underlined just how powerful labor’s leadership had become, especially in Illinois, and the events of 1958 would only serve to strengthen it. It was the year that the Illinois Federation and CIO, bitter rivals for over 20 years, finally reunited, bringing over 1.2 million souls under Reuben’s direct protection. It was a year of electoral success, with politicians of both parties in desperate search of labor’s blessing. It was a year of legislative accomplishment, with Reuben securing substantial gains in a special session of the General Assembly.

Such success carried risk, however. Power invites corruption, and the biggest fear of many—within organized labor as well as without—was that the legitimate gains unions had made would be perverted to serve the powerful instead of the working men and women for whom such protections were intended. Nationally, US Senate committee investigations had uncovered systemic corruption in organized labor, particularly among the Teamsters and their President Dave Beck. Locally, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, now three years into his first term, had already built a network of political, administrative, and commercial alliances that many believed effectively institutionalized corruption. In the words of historian Thomas Dyja:

In Chicago, where the average alderman answered to fewer than a quarter of the residents his counterpart in New York did, politics had always been service-oriented: patch my alley, help me get a liquor license; retail, as opposed to the wholesale sort concerned with policy and ideas…But the word retail implies one has a choice, and Daley was eliminating choices for the people of Chicago. Under him, the Machine no longer made any pretense of helping “regular guys” work the system; the Machine was the system, and its purpose was to rake in money, create jobs, and keep blacks in their place yet still voting Democratic. Big business, labor, the Mob, and the Machine had always been connected…but now they met openly at construction sites.[3]

All of this gave ready ammunition to manufacturing and emerging merchant interests intent on rolling back labor rights under the guise of fighting “racketeer unionism.” Illinois labor may have been mighty in the moment, but it was one legislative session and a “little Taft-Hartley” away from losing it all.

As the Illinois AFL-CIO merger approached, union leaders recognized they needed to select a president of unimpeachable character to helm the new organization. The moment called for someone whose reputation could counter the charge of corruption, who could credibly claim that he sought power not for himself but those he served. It also required a man of legislative skill, experience, and tact—someone who could simultaneously play the hardball of Illinois politics and heal the rifts that had divided organized labor.

On these counts, Reuben was a clear favorite. His career served as a study in avoiding personal gain. Despite multiple offers and opportunities, Soderstrom elected to live simply in his hometown of Streator, eschewing the riches and fineries that defined the lives of so many in power. His years as a legislator and labor lobbyist had also imbued him with a keen understanding of the politics of Springfield, as well as an uncanny ability to bring disparate and even antagonistic forces together in common cause. Cagey and persistent, the labor leader rarely hewed a straight line, wearing down the opposition through stubbornness and strength of will. “I never get ulcers,” he often joked, “but I give a lot of ‘em.’”[4]

The leader of this combined labor juggernaut would need more than just ethics and experience, however. The post also required someone with inexhaustible energy, who could move labor forward without sacrificing the gains it had made. The potential president would also be taking on new roles and responsibilities, making adaptability and a fresh approach an urgent necessity. While few would state so publicly, many wondered if Reuben, aged 70, was truly capable of being that man. Every newspaper account that described Soderstrom in 1958 led with his age, even if that was the only detail other than his title it provided.[5] While most assumed Reuben would take the reins initially, few seemed to believe he would be there for long.

Consequently, one of the biggest points of contention in the negotiations leading up to the merger was the question of succession, and as 1958 began it remained the largest unanswered question. If Soderstrom wanted to be taken seriously, he had to prove that he was not only seasoned but spritely, ready to go the full fifteen rounds against any and all comers. Reuben took the challenge with relish, enthusiastically proclaiming upon his ascension that he would be relentless in his pursuit of labor rights, taking the fight directly to labor’s foes, whomever and wherever they may be:

We are going to increase our political activity in the hope of defeating every enemy of labor which Illinois has in the United States Congress, every enemy of labor that we have in the General Assembly of Illinois, in every county board of supervisors, in the city councils of the municipalities throughout this great state…Forward together, united and determined to wipe out every wrong, to wipe out every injustice, to wipe out every tyranny, and to hasten the day when all of our people, including working people, can enjoy a perfect triumph of the brotherhood of all mankind.[6]

Reuben’s words proved prophetic; he may have led a distinguished career to date, but some of his biggest fights were yet to come.

REUB AND SON, A POWERFUL ALLIANCE

Tackle Recession and Special Sessions

1958 did not begin well for Reub. His failure to complete the merger of his Federation and the CIO in Illinois by the end of 1957 had earned a firm rebuke from AFL-CIO President George Meany, who threatened in a letter that February to revoke the charters of both state organizations if they failed to resolve their differences quickly.[7] To ensure this was accomplished, Meany dispatched AFL-CIO Vice Presidents William McFetridge and David McDonald, respectively Presidents of the (formerly AFL) Building Service Employees and (formerly CIO) United Steelworkers. Reuben took the hint; he was on a short leash and even shorter clock. He would have to end the standoff before the year’s end.

As 1958 unfolded, however, national events quickly overtook talks about the merger. The spring of 1958 brought with it a brutal recession—the worst seen since the Great Depression. A sudden spurt of declining demand rocked the national economy, costing nearly 7% of the US labor force their jobs. Americans of all stripes did their part to fight the economic threat. Some business owners hosted parties and sell-a-thons to spur purchases, while others offered bonuses on the condition that all the money be spent. In Kankakee, Illinois (where Reuben’s mother and sister Olga lived) the local Chamber of Commerce even held a mock execution of “Old Man Gloom” in an act of forced optimism.[8] The AFL-CIO, meanwhile, eschewed theatre for policy, releasing an economic plan calling for an expansion of public works, extension of the minimum wage to retail workers, and an increase in the personal income tax exemption, old age benefits, and the amount and duration of unemployment compensation payments.[9]

Many Illinois businessmen sought to turn the nation’s fear to their advantage. In late April, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce rounded up a gang of 37 state businessmen and sent them to Washington DC to lobby for stricter labor laws. Pitching their proposals as attempts to “curb the monopolistic powers of labor unions,” the group met with the Illinois congressional delegation to argue for a host of new prohibitions on labor activities.[10] Reuben pushed back hard against such efforts, charging that merchants needed to tend to their own house before throwing any stones. Any blame for the merchants’ woes, Reub asserted, belonged at the feet of discount chains, who were themselves the natural product of the retailers’ own gross price inflation. These merchants were the real racketeers, not the unions, and if any new prohibitions were to be passed they should be hung on their necks alone:

Abusive practices of dishonest merchants indicate the need for criminal penalties to punish those who victimize their customers. It isn’t any wonder that discount establishments, and business houses who merchandise the necessities of life wholesale, are thriving and doing a land-office business. Many Main Street merchants do more business during the Christmas season than they do the rest of the year. Many thoughtful working people wonder why after Christmas and January sales feature the same goods at prices one-third off and sometimes at half-price. This practice is obvious evidence that the unwary pre-holiday shopper was the victim of legalized pocket picking by the suave Main Street con-man…The Association of Retail Merchants, and the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, whose members frequently slug customers with extortion mark-ups, are guilty of racket practices, if not actual thievery, and perhaps the labor movement will one day think up a few reprisals and legislative retaliations.[11]

The Chamber’s efforts in DC fell flat; the House Labor Committee declined to hold a hearing on the group’s concerns.[12]

In Springfield, meanwhile, Soderstrom was working with the governor’s office to enact state relief. That summer Governor Stratton called a special session of the Illinois legislature to deal with the economic situation. He introduced two policies: a temporary extension of unemployment benefits from 26 to 39 weeks and an extra 15 million dollars for poor relief. The Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, Illinois Chamber of Commerce and Illinois Retail Marketers Association all predictably fought the measures, labeling them in the press as an “attempt to convert to general relief money accumulated by employer payments as an insurance fund.”[13] State legislators, however, had little stomach for opposing relief aid in the midst of an economic crisis. Discussion in Springfield quickly shifted from whether to pass the governor’s proposed increases to whether the increases he proposed would be adequate.

In the end Reuben scored a crushing victory; the increase and extension passed by a vote of 167 – 0 in the House and 46-4 in the Senate.[14] Rather than taking a victory lap, Soderstrom used the vote as fuel for the coming election, telling his readership in the Weekly Newsletter “We are truly saddened by the apparent lack of regard and concern for the unemployed displayed by those few who voted against this very mild proposal of help for those out of work. We ask our membership in those districts where the legislators showed little regard for the welfare of workers to take note.”[15] The fact that three of the four Senators weren’t up for re-election that year didn’t matter; Reuben was able to channel anger as leverage in their home district House races. One of the four districts flipped in the coming election, while the other remained in pro-labor hands.[16]

Electoral Wins for Carl Soderstrom and Labor

The Special Session fight of 1958 underscored Reuben’s greatest strength—he was the Grey Eminence of Illinois politics, working behind the scenes to secure votes and craft legislation. It was a position he had cultivated in part through a series of tactful endorsements. He had faithfully followed AFL founder Samuel Gomper’s nonpartisan policy of “electing our friends and defeating our enemies,” endorsing incumbents, regardless of party, who had not worked to undermine labor, even when a challenger promised more. It was a strategy that Reub had taken all the way to the governor’s race, beating back strong partisan sentiment within his ISFL to give labor’s endorsement to the Republican Governor Stratton. This approach not only helped ensure Reuben had influence in Republican administrations, but also increased ISFL influence within the Democratic Party. While Democrats in other states believed they could take labor’s vote for granted, Illinois politicians knew they had to work for Reuben’s support. Soderstrom’s nonpartisan reputation and his popularity among union voters combined to give his endorsements incredible weight.

The 1958 election was a prime example of just how influential and coveted that endorsement was. Politicians from both sides of the aisle clamored to win his support, and loudly proclaimed it once won. Republican representative Peter Miller listed Reuben first among all the endorsements he received, placing Soderstrom’s praise before any mention of the Chicago Bar Association, the Civic Federation, or Meek’s Illinois Retail Merchants Association.[17] Powerful politician and Democratic leader Paul Powell also proudly touted Soderstrom’s support[18] No candidate, however, made better use of Reuben’s endorsement than James Monroe, Democratic candidate for President in the 47th District (East St. Louis). In the course of his campaign Monroe twice took out giant ads in the Atlon Evening Telegraph titled “Illinois Federation of Labor President has HIGH COMMENDATION for James O. Monroe.[19]” With his ad buy Monroe chose to republish, in full, the letter Reuben had written to the incumbent, followed by an official statement of ISFL support. Only after all this did Monroe mention the support he had from other organizations. The Senator considered Reuben’s endorsement so central to his electoral prospects that he made this his election eve ad, publishing it the day before both the primary and general elections.

There was one pro-labor politician, however, who required no support from Reuben to carry the day—his son, Carl Soderstrom, Republican Representative for the 38th district. Once again, the Republican establishment party announced they would only select two candidates for the two Republican seats in their district, assuring Carl a place in the coming Assembly.[20] It was welcome news to the younger Soderstrom, who just a few years prior had faced a party willing to risk losing the seat to the Democrats for the chance to defeat him.

1958 proved to be a successful election year for working men and women across the board. Illinois followed the national trend towards labor-supported politicians; four union-friendly Democrats gained seats in the Illinois Senate, while a string of conservative losses in the lower chamber put the House back under the control of the Democrats and their labor-friendly leader Paul Powell. It was a ringing win for organized labor.

Judicial Amendment

One of the most important campaigns Reuben waged in the elections of 1958 was not against a candidate at all, but against a proposed “Judicial Reform” amendment to the Illinois constitution. Soderstrom was deeply opposed to the change, which sought to end the election of judges and eliminate the local fee-based funding of judicial offices. Reformers believed these changes would result in better courts for less money. “Fees will go to the state instead of to the Justice of the Peace,” wrote one supporter in the Chicago Daily Herald. “The fee system by which the JP is paid only if he finds you guilty will be ended at long last…Those JPs who are honest and competent will undoubtedly be appointed to continue to serve as salaried magistrates.”[21] Support for the proposed amendment crossed traditional party and ideological lines; Republican Governor Stratton lent his endorsement “unequivocally and completely,” while Chicago Mayor Daley said he was “personally and officially” behind the effort.[22] Even the CIO campaigned to drum up votes for the amendment. In the words of Southern Illinoisan reporter O.T. Banton, “[Illinois CIO President Joe] Germano has been vigorous in his backing of judicial reform, and has had speakers working all over the state, showing a sound color film and urging support of the amendment.”[23]

Reuben, however, did not see these changes as reforms, instead calling them “a fake and a step toward judicial autocracy.”[24] He agreed that the problems many of the “reformers” highlighted were real. To address these issues, Soderstrom called for the General Assembly to pass a state law abolishing the fee system, and supported “stricter supervision with higher standards with respect to judicial qualifications—decent salaries for magistrates and justices.”[25] He was deeply opposed, however, to making judges unaccountable through elections and the abolishment of local rule. He smelled an effort by those wielding judicial authority to consolidate and protect their power and positions. As he wrote in a sweeping essay that July in the heat of the debate:

[The State Bar Association is] working to eliminate all opposition for incumbent judges…They want judges to run against their record, or against their shadow. Their idea was definitely to freeze judges into their jobs permanently. The procedure is foreign to labor’s concept of American government…If they succeed in eventually freezing circuit judges into their jobs permanently, it means that justices of the peace will be also life-long appointees. The people, at any rate, would never have a chance to elect or oust them.[26]

While his argument was sound, Reuben’s position put him in a lonely corner. He was up against the Bar, the media, and politicians of every stripe. Unsurprisingly, the long odds simply led Soderstrom to punch even harder. At that year’s annual Central Labor Union conference, he railed against the amendment, declaring:

There was no miscalled “Right-to-Work” referendum in Illinois on Election Day, November 4, but there was something just as bad, or perhaps even worse, in the miscalled “Judicial Reform.” Both of these proposals were sweetened up and made attractive with seductive phony names. Neither proposal was the Real McCoy!”[27]

This attack was more than some in the audience could bear. Albert A. Krzywonos, Sub-District Director of the United Steelworkers of America in Illinois, and an active supporter of the amendment, wrote to Reuben in the wake of the conference to voice his protest, lamenting:

Reuben, what happened to you! Did your oratory carry you away—far away, or did you lose all sense of proportion. How can you compare the two issues and even put the ‘Judicial Reform’ issue far above the “Right-to-Work?”

You said, “every enemy of labor, big business, etc…were busy day and night trying to popularize this step towards judicial autocracy.”

Well, what about the United Steelworkers of America, my organization; what about the whole C.I.O.? We were busy day and night popularizing this issue; are we branded as enemies of labor?

What do you think? Your (sic) talking so authoritatively about the judicial reform as if you knew it all, and knew it pontifically and infallibly. But if you were caught in the squeeze of the road traps of the squeeze of garnishment as our working people are and if you were to wait years for settlement of cases of if you thought about the unfairness of the election of supreme justices on Illinois you would not talk like you did.

Do you think that all of us who thought differently than you were fooled. Maybe, you, who took the opposite position, were fooled.

You say, “appropriate legislation is the real answer.” Well, you were a spokesman for a group of people long ago. Why didn’t you advocate that long ago?

But above all, you scandalize me and surprise me with your comparisons placing the judicial reform as something worse than right-to-work.

Don’t let that beautiful oratory of yours carry you away![28]

This posed a serious challenge for Reuben. Such a letter likely represented the sentiment not only of Krzywonos, or even the CIO leadership, but a broad swath of ordinary laborers. If Reub’s response was too apologetic or vacillating, it would make him appear weak; if, on the other hand, he answered in a tone too callous or indignant, he risked alienating his audience and poisoning the ISFL-CIO relationship at this most fragile moment. True to form, Soderstrom’s reply was a pitch-perfect combination of firmness and respectfulness, and highlighted the tact that strengthened and humanized him at the same time:

Friend Krzywonos:

On some governmental matters the old Illinois State Federation of Labor supported the principle of local self-government. This was particularly true with respect to police systems and the judicial branch of our government.

Our policy was to definitely oppose a mobile police force—that is to say, wage-earners did not want Sangamon County police to patrol Will County, nor Will County patrolmen to police Sangamon County. Each locality should be permitted to police itself as it suits itself to be policed.

Through a bitter experience in the past with injunction judges labor generally believed also in local self-government with respect to the judiciary. The mis-called "Judicial Reform" eliminated the County Judge as such. It proposes several adjacent counties for him.

It also provided that upper court judges could be shifted around to anywhere in the State were their services were most needed. This violates the principle of local self-government because conceivably it could bring down-state judges into the Cook County circuits and Cook County judges into down­ state areas, and thus develop a mobile judiciary.

This would happen, no doubt, in controversial labor cases in which home Judges would like to duck hot issues and it seems to me that all labor should be wary of this type of violation of the principle of local self-government. In my address I merely adhered to the old traditional policies of the Illinois State Federation of Labor. With the CIO definitely in the picture there should of course be informal conferences between all representatives of the united labor movement relative to issues and policies. An exchange of views I think would be helpful. A few questions could be asked and a better understanding undoubtedly result in every­one interested helping each other…

No one is busier than the President of a State Organization when the General Assembly is in session. However, I trust you will come to Springfield sometime soon and pay my office a visit. I would like nothing better than to sit down with you and let you know just what the so-called "Judicial Reform" advocates were really trying to accomplish. You haven't heard but very little about their objectives.

Trusting that you are well and with kindliest personal regards and every good wish, I am

Your friend,

R. G. Soderstrom President[29]

In the end, Reuben carried the day. The proposed Amendment was not approved by the voters, leaving judges accountable to the people. Perhaps even more importantly, Reuben had managed to keep the AFL-CIO coalition together on a very contentious issue, maintaining his organization’s position while showing respect to those who passionately disagreed. It would not be the last time.

MERGE!

Coming to Terms

The Judicial Amendment fight was just one small (if important) example of the myriad number of fights and issues that faced the Illinois State Federation of Labor and the Illinois CIO in their seemingly interminable struggle to reunite. For the past three years, the two organizations had been arguing over the details of the merger, with heavy doses of mistrust on both sides. Many in the ISFL viewed the CIO almost as a virus or parasite, an opportunistic and dangerous infection threatening to overtake its host from the inside, injecting it with an overly broad and activist agenda that would take them too far from their core mandate and too close to the Democratic Party. The CIO, meanwhile, suspiciously saw the ISFL as a sort of undead monster—moribund and rotten, a relic from another era. While their points of contention were framed in legitimate arguments and dispassionate language, their utter failure to reach basic agreements after all these years spoke to a visceral animosity that made progress almost impossible.

This apparent intractability was made all the more remarkable by the fact that the two leaders, Reuben Soderstrom and Joe Germano, were both genuinely motivated to unify and willing to compromise. Minutes of the negotiations between the two groups clearly and repeatedly show Reub and Joe downplaying differences and searching for concessions acceptable to both sides. Neither was there a question about the presidency; from the very beginning it had assumed on both sides that Reuben would assume the presidency while Joe would accept a role as one of the organization’s vice presidents. Deep and divisive fights over leadership, however, did arise around the question of who would assume the No. 2 spot. Typically, a labor organization’s top two positions were held by the President and Secretary-Treasurer, respectively. In the national AFL-CIO merger, AFL President Meany and Secretary-Treasurer William Schnitzler both went on to hold those posts in the new organization, and Reuben’s Secretary-Treasurer Stanley Johnson assumed that he would be given that position in the ISFL-CIO. The CIO, however, rebelled against the selection of Johnson, claiming he had treated them with dismissiveness and contempt throughout the merger process. The issue had been a (if not the) major reason why the CIO had pulled out of the planned merger in 1957, refusing to negotiate until after their respective conventions.

While Reuben had been able to convince an investigative team sent by George Meany in October of 1957 that the ISFL was continuing to negotiate in good faith and deserved some latitude (all state mergers were to have been completed by the end of 1957), he knew that his time was fast running out. When Meany sent AFL-CIO vice-presidents William McFetridge and David McDonald in the late summer of 1958 to resolve the standoff once and for all, Reuben knew to play ball. “Whatever George Meany decides, we’re going to say, ‘Amen, thy will be done.’’ Soderstrom said. “There will be no quarrel from us. We’re willing to let Meany tell us what to do and we’ll do whatever he tells us.”[30]

Of course, this was on some level a clever act. By the time of McFetridge’s arrival nearly all the details concerning the merger had been basically settled. There were to be 19 officials in the new organization, 12 from the ISFL and 7 from the CIO. All assets would be pooled, with no staff changes contemplated. The new organization’s headquarters would be maintained in the Federation’s present offices in Chicago and Springfield. The constitution would expressly forbid affiliation with unions controlled by “communists, fascists, the Ku Klux Klan, or persons who have violated policies and codes of the AFL-CIO ethical practices act,” and would create committees on civil rights, community services, farm labor, legislation, and political education.[31]

Only three real questions remained. The first had to do with money.[32] Stanley Johnson was vigorously opposed to spending money on CIO programs, specifically those focused on community services and farm workers. Joe Germano, however, was insistent that funding for these programs continue at current levels in the new organization. Soderstrom was genuinely conflicted on the issue; while he wanted to maintain his organization’s financial standing and took pride in its low dues—which had not been raised once since Reuben became President—he saw value in such activities. He took particular interest in the person heading the Community Services program, a young man from Granite City by the name of Bob Gibson, in whom Reub saw great potential. McFetridge’s presence would give Soderstrom the cover he needed to sell the continuance of these programs to his own board, who were far more skeptical.

The second argument had to do with the new organization’s mandate and Reuben’s autonomy to deal with legislative matters in Springfield. Soderstrom was intent on preserving the prerogative that the new organization’s primary mission was to affect state legislation, and he was absolute in his desire to maintain his free hand in such matters. Other issues, such as civil rights and community service, were important—and Reuben had already agreed to the creation of constitutional committees to address these matters—but he would not let any labor organization he led get distracted or confused as to their highest purpose. He likewise refused to relinquish his power over legislation to a (frankly ineffectual) committee like the one the CIO currently maintained under the US Steelworkers’ Legislative Director John Alesia.

Reuben had no doubt he could wrest these concessions from the CIO under the weight of the McFetridge-led talks. Most importantly, he had to neutralize Robert Johnston, the CIO vice-president most intent on confusing the organization’s mandate and limiting his authority. Reub intended to cede to the creation of Committees on Political Education and Legislation for the purposes of advisement, provided he was given clear constitutional authority over such a committee. Not only did the national AFL-CIO constitution grant Meany such authority, the majority of CIO negotiators—including Joe Germano himself—appeared willing to agree with Reub on the issue. Given all this, Soderstrom knew Johnston would be unable to mount a defense in the face of the AFL-CIO President’s emissaries. He was proved correct; as the Weekly Newsletter reported at the negotiation’s completion:

From the services of (McFetridge and McDonald) evolved a clear-cut policy that the State legislation was still to be the main function of the newly-merged State Body. There would be no question that the President of the newly-merged State Body was to be in charge of activities and direct the affairs of the organization.[33]

More problematic was the question who would assume the position of Secretary-Treasurer: in other words, who was Reuben’s successor? For the majority of the negotiation process, the CIO had been willing to accept Stanley Johnson in that role, provided the position of Executive Vice President be created and added to the executive leadership. Meeting minutes appear to indicate that all involved viewed this new role as the “number three” post in the leadership, and that would be filled by then CIO Secretary-Treasurer Maurice McElligott.

After the talks broke down in the end of 1957, however, this compromise fell apart. Johnson had earned the irrevocable anger of the CIO, and they flatly refused to join any organization in which he was Secretary-Treasurer. Moreover, he’d lost Reuben’s confidence as well. Though he remained publicly supportive, Soderstrom acknowledged privately that he no longer viewed Johnson as an appropriate successor.[34] However, he also knew there was no viable alternative, at least in the moment. Even if Johnson was deeply flawed, Maurice, plagued by the alcoholism that would soon end his life, was not a suitable second. Even if McElligott was untroubled, abandoning Stanley for a CIO man would likely send the already profoundly skeptical ISFL into full-fledged revolt. For months the question hung heavy around Reuben’s neck—who would he choose as his successor?

The answer, ultimately, was deceptively simple: no one. Instead, Reuben redefined the role of Executive Vice President as the no. 2 role in leadership, and offered Johnson the Executive VP role instead. In a situation with no good options, it was a clever move. Johnson and the ISFL could still credibly claim the number two position, saving face, and gave the originally ill-defined office a clear purpose. As the final agreement outlined, “The President could assign duties to the newly-created office of Executive Vice-President, which in his estimation would best enable the new State Body to function effectively.”[35] The CIO, meanwhile, would hold the more established position, giving them an eventual legitimate claim to the presidency post-merger. Confusion, in this case, worked to everyone’s advantage, allowing all parties to walk back from the brink. As long as Reuben remained unquestionably in charge, the CIO would fall in line—for the moment.

Finally, on Saturday, August 9, 1958, the ISFL and Illinois CIO agreed to terms. McFetridge made the announcement, proudly touting the “complete understanding” that had been reached. Both groups would meet separately in Peoria on October 6 to vote on the merger and new constitution, immediately followed by the first ever convention of the Illinois Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. McFetridge proudly proclaimed that “More than 2½ years of negotiations ended in the tentative merger today of Illinois’ central organizations of the AFL and CIO into one giant body…The merger will give us unanimity of thought and action. It will bring our thinking together on legislative, political and organizational matters.”[36] Joe Germano told reporters the new organization would prove “the most powerful organized group of people in the world, working for the best interests of all people.”[37] Supporters of labor likewise offered messages of congratulations. As U.S. Senator Paul Douglas told the reunited organization that October, “This is an event for which I have long waited. For now that you are united, you can spend your energies in organizing the still unorganized and taking manfully your rightful places as responsible and concerned citizens of our great society.”[38]

Still, many—particularly within the ISFL—were less than pleased with the deal. Such dissatisfaction came into full public view at the ISFL convention that October. “A reluctant unity characterized the new organization,” reported the Decatur Daily Review. With its last official breath, the old Illinois State Federation of Labor “approved the agreement with something less than enthusiasm…A spokesman said the dissent volume at the federation meeting almost matched that of approval.”[39] “If we don’t agree here on merging, the national AFL-CIO will force us into a shotgun wedding,” another glum ISFL delegate told the Decatur journalist, “so we have to go along with the project.”[40] Even Reuben himself seemed muted; as the Edwardsville Intelligencer noted:

The long-delayed merger was completed late Monday, but not without signs of dissatisfaction on the part of the larger state Federation. The ISFL approved the merger agreement in a voice vote in which many “no’s” could be heard, although only one iron worker identified himself and asked the record show his opposition. ISFL President R.G. Soderstrom, who also becomes head of the merged labor movement, said of the apparent half-hearted approval of the merger by the ISFL: “It doesn’t matter if they didn’t vote heartily; it has to be.”[41]

A New Leader for a New Age

While the press made hay of ISFL-CIO drama, it also found itself enamored with unified labor’s new leader, Reuben Soderstrom. Reporters and editors across the state told Soderstrom’s improbable journey from child laborer to one of most powerful men in Illinois with renewed interest. Again from the Decatur Daily Review:

Reuben G. Soderstrom, a glassblower at 12, became today at 70 the first president of a merged Illinois labor organization representing 1,200,000 workers…In his career as labor leader and state representative he served in the General Assembly for 16 years. Soderstrom guided into law most of the labor legislation now on the books in Illinois…Soderstrom is a Minnesotan, born in Wright County, but he came to Streator at 12 to live with an aunt. He first was a bottle blower in a Streator glass factory, but then turned to the printing trade. In 1910, he did what he calls “a magnificent act”—he joined Streator Local 8, International Typographical Union. He still belongs. A Republican, he was elected to the first of his eight terms in the General Assembly in 1918.[42]

Reuben’s hometown paper gave a glowing account of Streator’s favorite son, writing:

Soderstrom, now president of the AFL state group, as head of the merged organizations will become one of the most important labor figures in the Midwest. A former Times-Press linotype operator, and a state representative of the 39th senatorial district for many terms, Soderstrom became president of the state federation in 1930, and has since served in that capacity. His son, Carl W. Soderstrom is now serving in the legislature in the seat occupied for so many years by his father.[43]

By the start of the first annual ISFL-CIO convention Reuben was full of bounding energy. This was a great moment for labor, and Soderstrom had emerged from the interminable talks with his authority not only preserved, but enhanced. Soderstrom called the reunification of organized labor in Illinois “the greatest step ever taken by the state’s working people.”[44] He knew there were many obstacles ahead, particularly with regards to healing the animosity that had built between members of the ISFL and CIO. Years prior, Soderstrom had described it as a near-religious struggle:

The labor union, its philosophy at least, is almost a religion. Perhaps it might be apropos to use this illustration, of all the hatreds that show the savage brutality of man I think that religious hatred is the worst. And of all the religious hatred, the hatred between two branches of the same faith is always the most bitter. Now, if this federation of labor is to be split in two permanently, I say to you it will create the same feeling of bitterness between unskilled worker and the skilled workers that is to be found in the religious war when two branches of the same faith start quarreling.[45]

Now after more than 20 years of separation these two rival faiths were again in communion under Reub’s pontificate. With a massive audience of 1,900 AFL delegates and 800 CIO delegates in attendance, President Soderstrom bid farewell to the existing federation by ushering in a new and exciting era. Humbly accepting the Presidency amid thunderous applause, he promised to all in attendance:

The Illinois State Federation of Labor and the Industrial Union Council of Illinois, united, becomes the largest group of people in this state. To be selected as its first President is, indeed, a great privilege, and I regard it as a very high honor. Lack of unity in the labor movement is a great hazard to working people. It is a hazard in the legislative field, and definitely a great hazard in the economic field. The unity attained here this morning is the greatest step forward ever taken by working people in this State. For more than twenty years we failed to fully cooperate with each other. If fact, there were times when raiding and other menacing activities were designed to harass and destroy each other.

All of that is history and belongs in the past. From here on out we are united. We are going to work together to help each other to secure better wages, better hours, better working conditions in every craft, in every plant, in every factory, in every industry throughout this great State… The aims and purposes and objectives of the united labor movement are to make life more bearable for all of our working people, including working people. We have, in Illinois, the happiest and freest and most enlightened wage earners in America, and we want to keep it that way….Now in a spirit of friendliness and gratefulness and in a spirit of deep humility I want to accept the responsibility of the presidency on the State level of this merged organization…In this connection I desire to make this further pledge—with respect to my own faithfulness to the fundamental principles and to the highest aspiration of labor and the labor movement—I want to here voluntarily pledge to you, and through you to the men of labor, and the women of toil, and to the children, too, who are to take our places as they grow, that there will be neither a wrongful nor dishonorable act on my part which shall in the least detract from the greatest triumph that can come to labor, or to the cause of labor, as long as I am permitted to remain your President.[46]

It was a new age, and the energetic, 70-year-old Reuben stood ready to lead it.

* * *