A DAY TO REMEMBER

Reuben couldn’t stop smiling. Normally, that wouldn’t be a remarkable thing; even at 65, the gland-handing labor leader was still known for an infectious optimism, his 5 foot 9 inch, 215-pound frame driven by a seemingly endless well of energy that drew anyone near into his orbit. Today, however, there was something different about the trademark smile—less the knowing grin of an assured orator ready for battle, it bore witness to an innocence and wonder, as if he were a child on his first visit to Disneyland. In many ways, he was; this was the day he’d been anticipating ever since he received the letter direct from the White House inviting him to a luncheon with President Kennedy.

He’d met and mingled with Presidents before, of course, from his early days stumping with Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt down through his work in Washington under the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Still, this was something special; an official lunch in the State Dining Room was a privileged affair, the opulence of the pristine ivory walls and gold-damask draperies matched only by the intimacy of the experience. And there was something special about this young President: in particular, a dynamic magnetism that drew in even the most savvy and skeptical. Soderstrom had been excited by the selection of Kennedy as the Democratic Presidential candidate in 1960; he’d been considerably less enthused about the Party’s choice of Johnson as his Vice President, however. The announcement, widely met with jeers from labor, had even lead Reuben to publicly reconsider his support for Kennedy, telling the press that labor may be best served by not voting at all to register their displeasure.[1] The move nearly lost Kennedy Illinois; he won the state by fewer than 9,000 votes, a margin of .19%.[2]

That opposition (and its fallout) was a big reason why Reuben had been selected as one of the 33 labor leaders invited to the Capitol that May 2, 1963. The 1964 election was just around the corner, and the administration was worried about its chances. Kennedy believed his support of Civil Rights jeopardized his position in the South, especially in Texas (which he previously won by less than 2%) and Louisiana (where the States’ Rights party took over 20% of the vote).[3] He was also concerned that the economic stagnation of the past few years would suppress the labor vote. As he confided to his advisors at the time:

What is it we have to sell them? We hope to sell them prosperity, but for the average guy, prosperity is nil…He’s not unprosperous, but he’s not very prosperous. He’s not going to make out well off. And the people who are well off hate our guts.[4]

All this meant two things; first, that the President must keep Johnson on the ticket for Southern support, and second, that decision must receive labor’s blessing. It was with this political math in mind that President Kennedy had invited labor leaders from Texas and Louisiana, along with officials from media-savvy New York and the Washington Beltway, to a lunch just the week before to “reintroduce” the Vice President to labor.[5] As labor reporter Victor Riesel recounted:

A gay and informal luncheon gathering at the White House—which has gone unreported—was one of the biggest political stories of the year. In a deliberate and subtle move, President Kennedy laid low the rumors which have been widely circulated on the political demise of Vice President Lyndon Johnson…Mr. Johnson would not have been asked to this get-together if the President had not wanted his intimacy and friendship with the Vice-President talked about amongst the men who will give their unions’ energy, manpower, and funds to the 1964 campaign. The President went out of his way to make this clear to the liberal and labor leaders present.[6]

While this initial meeting focused mostly on the South and Northeast, Kennedy swiftly turned his attention to the Midwest, inviting labor leaders from swing states including Michigan and Pennsylvania, and from West Virginia.[7] On the top of that list, however, sat Illinois. With 27 electoral votes, the Prairie State was worth more than any other in the Union save New York and California—a prize jewel that could easily hold the election in the balance. Moreover, the “Daley Machine” had already milked the upstate of every Democratic vote it had (including, some whispered, many it didn’t). If the President wanted to secure the Illinois vote, he would have to look outside Chicago for an ally. He needed a voice respected throughout the state, a voice listened to by the average guy in the middle class, a voice that could be trusted as bipartisan. He needed Reuben Soderstrom.

From the outset of the lunch Kennedy worked especially hard to ingratiate himself to Reub. Shortly before the melon cup au porto was served, the President rose to declare, “There will be no political speeches,” drawing looks of confusion and disappointment from his guests. After a beat, the President slyly continued, “That’s because I’m afraid Reub Soderstrom will ask for equal time,” drawing chuckles from all.[8] After a sumptuous serving of roast leg of lamb vert pre, the guests were given a tour of the White House. The President had other plans for Reuben, however. As his sister Olga later recounted:

President Kennedy drew Reub aside and took him on a personal tour. They went together to the elevator and the President said he thought Reub would enjoy seeing President Teddy Roosevelt’s bedroom and President Abe Lincoln’s bedroom. President Kennedy had apparently done some research on Reub and knew he had been a follower of Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party. Reub really appreciated this extra personal attention paid him by President John F. Kennedy.[9]

It is not known what the two men discussed in private; perhaps they shared a few historical anecdotes of Lincoln. Or perhaps Kennedy took the moment to privately lobby Reuben on his needs in Illinois in the upcoming election. In any event, it was a day to remember, and Reuben left the White House deeply impressed by not just the office or attention but by the man himself. Soderstrom not been so taken with a President since FDR, a man who, just like JFK, was born to wealth and privilege but built his legacy on improving life for all, especially the poor and dispossessed. As he subsequently wrote of Kennedy, “He possessed the rare faculty of displaying a personal interest in the welfare of all the people of this great Nation, regardless of race or color. It mattered not to him whether they were rich or poor, black or white. He was their accepted guide and pilot.[10] Whatever transpired during their fateful meeting certainly swayed Soderstrom; he committed to give the President his voice and full support in the coming election.

But he would never have the chance. A few months later, an assassin’s bullet took the life of the dynamic leader in Dallas, Texas, leaving the nation in a state of shock and revulsion. Reuben had only begun to know the new President, and the sudden loss hit him like a punch to the gut. Two weeks after the assassination, Reuben spoke to the Delegates of the 15th Annual Central Labor Union Conference in the gleaming, new North Wing of the University of Illinois’s Illinois Union Building at Urbana. He took the opportunity to eulogize the fallen leader, giving shape and voice to the grief that clutched at the heart of so many in labor and beyond. To Reub, JFK’s life and loss was not only a tragedy but a lesson, an example for the nation whose sudden loss made his moral example all the more important:

The members of the Labor Movement, like all other good people in our blessed land, are still badly shaken up over the cowardly and incredible assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy…John F. Kennedy, at times gay and witty, was indeed a grand national leader, blessed with a delightful family, a charmingly attractive wife and two beautiful children. He was also very wealthy. In fact he had everything most of us want or would like very much to have. Instead of retiring, however, into a pleasant field of personal comfort, pleasure, travel, and amusement, which he could have done, he chose to spend his time, talents, and mental energies at shouldering the burdens, problems, and troubles of our people and especially working people. That is why wage earners mourn.

It is difficult to estimate how much we have lost…The loss to the Labor Movement is deep and crushing; the loss to the Nation and the world is historic and overpowering. John F. Kennedy was a man of intellect as well as action. He somehow represented vitality and energy, the intelligence and enthusiasm, the courage and the hope of these United States in the middle of this 20th century…

Among the last words John F. Kennedy wrote were these: “In a world full of frustration, America’s leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason.” Momentarily the light of reason was extinguished by the crack of a rifle shot in Dallas on November 22nd. But that light is, in reality, inextinguishable, and with the aid of our schools, colleges, universities, the Labor Movement and the Great Ruler Above, it will show the way to our Country and our Country’s leaders as we mourn for the 35th President of the United States in the turbulent days ahead.[11]

POLITICS OLD AND NEW

Both Governor and Statehouse Unfriendly to Labor

The death of President Kennedy united the nation in grief. It was a unity that had been sorely lacking for most of 1963, especially in Illinois. The year did not start well for labor politically; the 1962 elections ushered in substantial Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, giving anti-labor interests a firm hold on the General Assembly.[12] Democrats still held the Governor’s mansion, but there was no love lost between Soderstrom and Kerner. Soderstrom believed the Governor was behind anti-labor initiatives like the proposed merging of Police and Firefighting forces and the attempted reorganization of the Illinois Department of Labor (charges which Kerner fervently denied).[13] More importantly, Reuben disliked Otto for his record on labor legislation. In the 1963 session the Governor vetoed a host of labor bills that Soderstrom had shepherded through the General Assembly. As Reuben ruefully reported to the delegates that year:

The Governor vetoed a number of Labor proposals. He vetoed the 40-hour week bill for State Employees, and the bill proposing to extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits to State Employees paid entirely out of Federal funds. He vetoed the bill proposing an increase in wages for fire fighters and policemen, and also the bill designed to prevent mergers of firemen and police forces. No fire fighter wants to be a policeman, and no policeman wants to be a fire fighter. He also vetoed the bill proposing to improve barber shop standards, and limit the number of Illinois barber colleges to forty.[14]

To further complicate matters, the Illinois press in 1963 cast renewed and negative attention on the work of lobbyists in Springfield. The reasons for this were varied and complex; they varied from efforts by liberal politicians to increase transparency on political spending to machinations by conservative Republicans to sell to the public the idea that pro-labor bills were the underhanded work of “special interests.” Whether the attacks came from the right or the left, the caricature was the same—lobbyists were unaccountable and powerful lackeys who put the wants of their backers ahead of the needs of the common good. “I do not mean to say that all lobbyists are bad,” wrote Senator Paul Simon in the wake his ‘lobbying transparency bill’ failure. “Most are good, decent people who represent worthy causes. But if honest lobbyists don’t want to get tarred with the same reputation as the dishonest, they are going to have to speak up.[15]” Republican Mayor and Lieutenant Governor hopeful Allan Walters was less subtle in his denunciation of those he claimed were responsible for prevailing minimum wage laws. “State officials tend to ignore the overall interests of the state, and direct their attention to those groups who can afford lobbyists in Springfield. Few citizens can afford such campaigns.[16]

Walters was half right; Reuben and his lieutenants were primarily responsible for prevailing wage, minimum wage, and nearly all the labor protections in Illinois law. Without him, the legal landscape would be far less favorable for the average worker. But unlike the lobbyists of the Manufacturers’ Association or the Retail Merchants Association, Soderstrom’s efforts were funded by the average citizen. In fact, Reuben had long refused to raise dues, choosing instead to live simply and rely on increasing the number of affiliated workers to cover costs. Reub maintained it was the size of labor’s membership, not its pocketbook, which drove its success. Furthermore, the bills and policies labor supported generally benefited not only workers but Illinois as a whole. More money in the hands of workers meant a stronger consumer base, creating a rising tide that lifted all boats. As Soderstrom told the delegates that year at the national convention:

Just about 30 years ago when our country was going through the worst economic depression in its history, there were only three million members in the movement of labor. Today we have seventeen million members…Without unions our wage level would be less. Our buying power would definitely be reduced. Fewer cars, fewer home utensils, fewer clothes and manufactured goods would be sold; the farmer would have a smaller market and the businessman would have less trade…Vacations with pay, for example, negotiated by labor unions, have made it possible for millions of wage earners to see America and enjoy their God-given heritage. Union-negotiated welfare and insurance plans have made it possible for the breadwinner of the family to provide better protection for himself and his dependents regardless of his income, and union-negotiated pensions have been a move toward removing the apprehensions and fears of old age. By supporting labor legislation, the labor movement has contributed towards a better day and better life for all the people of America.[17]

This difference was largely lost on the press, however, which painted all who lobbied in Springfield with the same broad brush, often vilifying advocates like Soderstrom in the process. A prime example is a major piece by the Alton Evening Telegraph, decrying lobbyists as Springfield’s “Third House:”

Although they have no formal function in government, theirs is a voice always offered and sometimes sought by legislators in the other two houses. They elect no officers, have no well-established organization, and yet there always seems to be a quorum of them present on the third floor of the rotunda of the Capitol Building in Springfield when the General Assembly is in session…

Lobbyists are usually a combination of diplomat and hail-fellow, well-met types…and among the lobbyists are many former state legislators whose experience as lawmakers and working acquaintances with their former colleagues make them valuable…(for example) R.G. Soderstrom, Streator, president of the Illinois State Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO) whose son is a state labor representative, lobbies for the Federation. He also is a former House member.[18]

“Wage Earners Have Been Slaughtered and Crucified”

Given this toxic environment, it should come as little surprise that 1963 was the year that the political system of compromise Reuben had spent decades building broke down for the first time. For decades, Reuben had been able to work with his counterparts in the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association and the like to manage changes to the Workmen’s Compensation and Occupational Disease Acts. As Reuben described the process:

We worked out a procedure of having representatives of labor sort of get together and incorporate what I term a very stiff bill of the things desired by the representatives of labor in Illinois. We know that it cannot be enacted but it’s referred usually to the Committee of Judiciary and the employers, they appear before the committee and they charge of course that type of legislation can’t be passed, that it would be too costly for industry to try to meet the demands provided for in such legislation, and they themselves usually are agreeable to have a committee from the judiciary committee appointed to take charge of the conferences between the representatives of labor and the representatives of the employer…The procedure works out very well because when the representatives of labor and the employers start to clash on some given point the subcommittee from the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate usually make a decision for us, and in that way we attain what is known as an Agreed Bill.[19]

This carefully choreographed dance was a staple in labor-management relations. It was especially important for Workmen’s Compensation and Occupational Disease legislation because such issues were “so complicated that is would take the entire time of the Judiciary Committee of both houses to consider all the details of the proposals that are involved in that type of legislation.[20] But by May of 1963 this well-worn process had come to a screeching halt. As Reuben described in an essay that spring, labor and management had met over 20 times, but the results were “A big, ugly cipher. The Agreed Bill procedure has failed. The legislative subcommittees ‘lowered the boom!’”[21] Although the IMA was intransigent as ever, Reuben blamed the Republican-led legislature, not management, for the breakdown:

In a peculiar spirit of reluctancy, the Legislative subcommittees joined with the employers and refused to arbitrate or decide the points of disagreement…The only thing agreed upon was that both sides have disagreed and that the subcommittees were evading the hot potato of carrying out their obvious obligations.

Reub grew angrier as he continued, the heat of his fury increasing with every word as he railed against the Assembly’s cowardice. He moved from the agreed bill process to the whole legislative session, which he claimed was one of (if not the) worst in history:

There has been less sympathy for, and less attention paid, to unfortunate wage earners in this session of the Legislature than any previous session within the memory of those who watch the work of the Illinois General Assembly. Instead, there has been a visible spirit of hostility and antagonism in evidence almost constantly. In fact, several lawmakers have displayed a frivolous and sometimes arrogant desire to hurt somebody rather than to help poor and needy and unfortunate people among their constituency.

Many lawmakers, of course, remained faithful to themselves and to Labor’s great cause, for which our union membership is grateful. They were true to their campaign pledges, but a surprising number of lawmakers seemingly forgot their campaign promises and also where they came from, and deserted both Labor and their own constituents by joining with the most reactionary Illinois employers who are responsible for this frenzied, and we are sorry to say, apparently successful attempt to stop the painful march of injured and crippled working people in the legislative halls of this great State.

To date the hopes of wage earners have been slaughtered and crucified again and again by management in this legislative session. It has been a most disappointing performance by some of those from whom Labor has a right to expect sympathy and help. It is especially heart-breaking to employees who meet with accidents or disease while at work, those who have lost their arms, their legs, their eyesight or their lives. Many thoughtless and often callous employers, and their legislative representatives, do not even grudgingly express sympathy or mourn for those who are dead. Methinks they should hang their heads in shame![22]

Reuben’s ire didn’t ease with time. Just the opposite; by the end of the session Reuben was swinging at the politicians in Springfield every chance he got. As the legislature adjourned that June, Reuben thundered to the press, “A shameful Ebenezer Scrooge atmosphere of chronic reaction defeated the hopes and aspirations of Illinois working people during the 1963 session of the General Assembly.”[23] Reub’s disgust with the legislature was on full display again that September at the Illinois AFL-CIO convention as he inveighed against them with his full rhetorical might in his Presidential Address:

Today we have a spirit of reaction in the General Assembly of Illinois. That same spirit was in existence 50 years ago. I felt at that time that many evils in industry could be corrected by legislation, and to combat this spirit of reaction more than 50 years ago, I filed my petition and became a candidate of the House of Representatives in Illinois. I went through a difficult, hard campaign, and everywhere I was accused of being young and I never tried to deny it. But as a young man I knew something about the feelings of young men and I knew what it meant to have a condition in our political society, which made it difficult for a young man to rise in life unless he became the favorite of some corporation.

I wanted the government to be as the fathers intended it—so that the humblest citizen in the land could rise to any position in the business or political world to which his merits entitled him. Things should be so that if a young man entered politics he would not find arrayed against him all of the great corporations, their financial and political influences unless he was willing to join with them in a conspiracy against the welfare of the people as a whole.[24]

As 1963 came to a close, it was clear that Reuben feared the “spirit of reaction” was threatening once again to corrupt government, reestablishing the conspiracy that he had spent a lifetime fighting against. The political force and fortunes of business were once again ascendant in Illinois, Soderstrom warned, to a degree he had not witnessed since the 1920s. Now in the winter of his career, Reuben openly worried that organized labor’s darkest days were not behind but ahead, its greatest fight yet to come.

SODERSTROM INVITES REV. ABERNATHY TO CONVENTION

Amidst Labor’s many disappointments, there was one bright spot to which Reuben could turn, one success that stood out to those within labor and beyond—the advancement of Civil Rights, especially within the world of work. Despite legislative failures in other fields, Soderstrom succeeded in enacting a bill extending the Fair Employment Practices Commission legislation to cover public employment agencies. He also saw to it that Illinois was the first of 39 states to adopt the Poll Tax Resolution, prepared by Organized Labor and designed to amend the Constitution, to eliminate the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to become eligible to vote.[25]

Reuben’s expansion of Civil Rights wasn’t limited to the legislative field, however. That year he also helped secure the Illinois AFL-CIO’s passage of Resolution 68, officially lending the organization’s support to President Kennedy’s pursuit of equal opportunity for all and urging all union leadership to continue to push “toward elimination of racial discrimination.”[26] In a precedent-setting move, Reuben moved the topic to the forefront of Illinois labor by inviting Civil Rights leaders to deliver addresses at that year’s annual convention, including Representative Corneal Davis, the sponsor of the Illinois Fair Employment Act, and Martin Luther King Jr. himself.[27] Rep. Davis, whom Soderstrom described to the audience as having “an eloquent way of wrapping up humanitarian issues in the cloak of morality and oftentimes in the white cloak of Christianity,” gave an historic address to the Delegates, proclaiming that “The labor movement needs the Negro and the Negro needs the labor movement. Thank God, today there are more than a million and perhaps a million and a half Negroes in various labor organizations. For only as the Negro becomes a full citizen can the promise of the American Dream come true.”[28] He continued to explore the connection between the two, directly comparing the struggle for workers’ rights to the current fight:

The surge of labor to its place of prominence in our society has been against tremendous resistance. Many men have suffered in the struggle; others have been jailed; still others have been killed and thousands have taken to the streets and endured hardship along with their families to achieve a decent standard of living for all workers. In this struggle to achieve fuller rights for its members, the labor movement has created a climate which has brought increased benefits to all Americans. This is a unique contribution of the labor movement to the history of our country.[29]

He concluded by giving his personal thanks and support to labor’s leadership, singling out Soderstrom and his Stanley Johnson for their efforts:

Labor is a most important sector of our economy and the progress and growth of the economic life of our nation depends in a large measure upon the strength of the labor movement and the statesmanship exercised by its leaders in grappling with the crucial problems of our times. And let me say this, I know Reub Soderstrom and I know Stanley Johnson. I know these labor leaders, and, thank God they are working to right the wrongs, whatever they are, and against the minorities, against all people of all races and all creeds, not only in the state of Illinois, but in this nation. Thank God for them. May your zeal and dedication light the fires of a new crusade for equality for all men within the ranks of labor that shall sweep across the prairies of Illinois and bring the dawn of a new day of labor relations.[30]

Martin Luther King was unable to attend the convention; by the summer of 1963 he was busy working with labor leader and civil rights advocate A. Phillip Randolph, planning for their highly anticipated “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” When King addressed the estimated 250,000 supporters from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that August, one month before the Illinois Convention, he electrified the Movement and the nation with the now immortalized articulation of his dream for the nation. In Illinois, meanwhile, King dispatched the luminary Reverend Ralph Abernathy, Secretary-Treasurer of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, to speak in his stead. Reuben welcomed the Civil Rights leader with open arms, introducing him to the crowd as “A fearless leader of his race, a minister of the gospel who understands organized labor, a representative of the Great Ruler above, who believes in justice and right and freedom. I feel highly honored to be permitted to present to you this great spiritual leader, one of the greatest exponents of human rights of our time.”[31] In a masterful speech, the Reverend Abernathy called for solidarity in the struggle to come:

As Americans we are at one of the most difficult periods and difficult stages in our history. We have not as yet fully realized we are all brothers and a man must be judged by the quality of his soul and not by the color of his skin or the texture of his hair, or the pigment found beneath his skin. We are all tied together in one single bond of mutuality and what affects one affects all of us. I feel and I know, we are brothers and sisters, that we are allies together for I have discovered that these forces that are anti-Negro, are anti-Jewish, anti-minority, whatever group it might be, are also anti-labor. So we have a very close kinship and we are fighting to achieve as Americans the same goals.

We must make it clear the Negro will no longer be satisfied with second class citizenship and that you will no longer be satisfied with any minority, whether it be the Negro, the Puerto Rican, the Mexican, or any other minority group having second class citizenship here in the United States of America. We are not just asking that labor support us, but I want to assure you today that more than ever before, know that the civil rights organizations will support you also. If you will do your job, and if I will do my job and if every American citizen will do his job we will all be able to stand and sing together.[32]

As Abernathy finished to applause, Reuben took to the stage to reaffirm Labor’s support, proclaiming “The Negroes of Illinois are helping the labor movement… and the labor movement in turn is helping the Negro. We are standing together and working together to attain these objectives…Regardless of color, most citizens of Illinois know in their hearts the time for stalling and explanations is over and the time is here to establish equality in the field of employment on this great frontier of civil rights.[33]

REUBEN’S PROTÉGÉ, BOB GIBSON

The 1963 convention was a rousing success, a stirring display of solidarity and resolve. Sadly, the joy it wrought was soon shattered by the tragic death of the nation’s beloved President, John F. Kennedy. JKF’s untimely death was not the only fatality the Illinois Labor movement suffered in 1963, however. Early on the morning of July 1st, Maurice “Mac” McElligott, Secretary-Treasurer of the Illinois AFL-CIO, passed. His obituary highlighted the leader’s endearing and fun-loving nature, reminding readers:

The wide-ranging friendships and respect, which Maurice McElligott developed over a lifetime of service, are not given to many…His genial and likable personality was a great asset in the organizing drives of the 1930’s. Coupling this with his knowledge of the trade, and a desire to help fellow workers help themselves, made a winning combination…His cheerful spirit will still remain with us in memory and example.[34]

What was less-spoken of, yet equally well-known, was the darker curse that accompanied the lovable McElligott’s congeniality. As one colleague related:

Maurice was a victim of the booze…He’d drink a shot of whiskey and he never turned one down and by the end of the afternoon or day this glass would be full of whiskey. He would take a shot and then spit the rest of it in here and this thing would be like solid, straight whiskey. I’ve seen him do it a million times.[35]

Despite broad knowledge of this poorly-kept secret, Maurice’s death still came as a surprise. After all, the Secretary-Treasurer had lived with his disease for as long as anyone could remember, and while most believed it would eventually be the death of him, few thought that it would come so soon or sudden. So when the Executive Council scrambled for his replacement, a fight soon broke out over who should replace him. On one end stood Stanley Johnson, Executive Vice President and longtime opponent of the AFL-CIO merger. He was Secretary-Treasurer of the old ISFL, and had originally been slated to assume the role within the merged organization before his belligerence during the negotiations made him unacceptable to the CIO. Although his current post was technically above the Secretary-Treasurer position, it was a temporary title that most agreed would be retired after Johnson (presumably) ascended to the Presidency. Stanley knew that if a young, popular leader were picked as Secretary, it would rob him of the ability to pick his own second and successor. He preferred choosing an older candidate, or possibly even taking the title himself.

On the other end stood Joe Germano. Following the precedent set by Walter Reuther, Joe had retired from the CIO Presidency willingly, accepting a position as one of the organization’s 16 vice presidents. Germano hated Stanley, however, and was bound and determined that Mac’s successor should be the organization’s dynamic, young Community Services Director, Bob Gibson. Gibson had impressed Joe since their early days in the CIO, and he knew that if Reuben got the chance to know and work with him, Bob could become Soderstrom’s preferred protégé.

Reuben, of course, was ultimately responsible for the choice. As President, he was the one who would recommend a candidate to the Executive Board, a recommendation that would almost certainly be met with unanimous approval once made. Although Stanley was Soderstrom’s second, Joe was the one with the President’s ear. The two shared a practical outlook and sense of duty. Moreover, as the leader of the CIO faction, Reuben was inclined to give Germano’s opinion considerable deference. When it came to Bob’s selection, however, there was a glaring problem: according to the Illinois AFL-CIO constitution, any replacement had to be a serving vice-president. Reuben was in a bind; he wanted Gibson, but as it stood it still appeared as though Stanley might get his way.

As the Executive Board gathered in Chicago that Thursday to pick Maurice’s successor, Soderstrom took Gibson aside, Reub’s piercing gray eyes staring him straight down as he spoke. “You know, Bob, that Joe Germano sure thinks a lot of you,” he said.

“I think a lot of him, too,” Bob replied.

“Well, I just want you to know we got ourselves in a kind of pickle.” Reub explained the situation to Bob, shook his head, and sighed. “I just don’t know what to do.”

“Well, it’s pretty clear to me,” Bob said, trying to hide his obvious disappointment. “I understand, though. You do what you need to do.” To his surprise, Bob’s words were met with a wry look from Reub, who gave a quick nod of satisfaction, as if he’d just passed some sort of test. As Reub walked away and into the conference room, Joe came up with a grin on his face and a glint in his eye.

“You know you’re going to take Mac’s place. You think you can handle it?”

“Well, I know I can handle it, but Reub just left here and he doesn’t think we can do it, and I’m not sure you can either.”

“You watch me,” Joe shot back with a wink, striding into the room.

Germano entered just as Reuben was calling the meeting to order. He started off by noting Maurice’s passing with sadness, pausing to mourn the friend they’d lost. After a moment, Soderstrom broke the silence to begin their first order of business: picking Mac’s successor. He made clear his preference for Gibson, extolling his service as Community Services Director. “We all appreciate his work, Reub,” Stanley cut in with an impatient tone, “But the rules are clear. Mac’s replacement has to come from the Executive Board. He’s got to be a vice president.”

At that moment Joe rose to his feet, puffed out his chest, and loudly exclaimed “Well, then, I quit!” All present turned their heads toward Germano, their faces full of confusion. Was the former CIO chief withdrawing? Was this the start of a new split between the AFL and CIO in Illinois? Reub maintained a stoic calm as an anxious muttering filled the room. The two men stared each other down for several seconds, both finally breaking into smiles as Joe continued. “I’m resigning my spot on the Executive Board and I want you to name Gibson to my seat.”

Stanley’s eyes popped wide. Of course—why hadn’t he seen it before? After all, Reuben had become President of the ISFL without first serving as a vice president himself 33 years earlier when Walker chose him to lead, engineering Soderstrom’s nomination to the Executive Board in the exact same way. Reub must have orchestrated this entire scene in advance with Joe, and now he, Stanley, was entirely powerless to stop it.

“Well, then,” Reub continued with mock regret, “I want to thank you, Mr. Germano, for all your fine service.”

“Oh, I’ll be back,” Joe answered with a wink, drawing a chuckle from the Board. Reuben continued:

“Gentlemen, it appears we have a vice presidency to fill. I’d like to nominate Robert Gibson. Anyone want to second that motion?”

Five minutes later it was finished. Bob was nominated to vice president, then immediately nominated to Secretary-Treasurer. Joe was then picked to fill the vice presidency vacated by Gibson.[36] Bob accepted the post with honor and humility, writing in the newsletter:

I realize more than anyone else the tremendous responsibility in trying to fill the job of our beloved friend and colleague, Maurice McElligott, but with the grace of God, the help of my fellow officers, and the leaders of the Labor Movement in Illinois, we can reach our goal together, and tackle the problems that face us with determination and dedication.[37]

Finally, Reub got the man he’d wanted—someone who he would eventually come to see as his heir and potential successor. Amidst all the challenges of 1963, this was an unambiguously bright moment.

* * *