Saturday, September 27, 2014


From The Labor History Archives -In The 80th Anniversary Year Of The Great San Francisco, Minneapolis And Toledo General Strikes- Lessons In The History Of Class Struggle 

Longshoreman's Strike of 1934



President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed our nation had a rendezvous with destiny, that is, the American people would survive the Great Depression and achieve unparalleled economic and social well-being. In some ways American labor gained a measure of FDR's dream during the 1930's. After a century of unending struggles for the right of their unions to exist, the New Deal assisted American workers at a time when the national labor movement was declining precipitately in membership.

During June 1933, Congress enacted the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) to combat the economic depression by shortening hours of labor, increasing wages, and eliminating unfair trade practices. The Act also created the National Recovery Administration (NRA) to work with industry and labor to increase employment. Section 7-A of NIRA provided workers the choice of their own representatives to bargain collectively with employers.

On the Pacific Coast, where company unions had dominated industrial relations since the early 1920's, the effect of the federal legislation was to open a new era in employer-employee relations.'
A notable exception to the Pacific Coast labor situation was Tacoma, where ILA Locals 38-3 and 38-30 were the only major closed shop longshore unions on the West Coast.

These locals were respected by both the ILA international office and other Pacific Coast longshoremen for their efficiency and strong leadership. During 1934 Paddy Morris was Pacific Coast ILA Organizer, and Jack Bjorklund was District Secretary. Morris and Bjorklund had spent years trying to organize the West Coast, but until 1929 their organizing drive stumbled along with little progress.

Then worker militancy asserted itself. ILA locals were chartered in Everett and Grays Harbor in 1929. Portland was next in 1931 and Seattle in 1932. When San Francisco, key to the coast, was organized during the fall of 1933, longshoremen were ready to move. By March 1934, forty-four ILA locals held charters in the Pacific Coast District, and longshoremen were once again solidly unionized from San Diego, California, to Juneau, Alaska.

As the Pacific Coast ILA reconstituted itself, district members became involved in developing another important provision of NIRA, Section 7-B. This clause asked industries to voluntarily prepare codes of operation which would stimulate economic recovery and at the same time recognize the needs of working people. From
July 2 trough 5, 1933, a special session of the Pacific Coast District ILA met in Seattle to review a tentative code prepared by Tacoma.

The 56 delegates added or eliminated as they saw fit the various clauses or conditions affecting practically every line of work on the waterfront. The delegates then sent the tentative code with their revisions to the various locals for their acceptance, modification or rejection. The code referendum was overwhelmingly approved by the members .

Pacific Coast District ILA officers, including Jack Bjorklund and Paddy Morris, went to Washington, D.C. with the membership's recommendations for inclusion in the Section B shipping code. When they arrived in the nation's capital city the ILA men discovered that maritime employers already had prepared their version of the code and refused to meet with longshore representatives concerning a joint proposal. Attempts by the NRA bureaucracy to bring the shipping companies to the conference table to discuss the shipping code with the union men were futile.

The shock of the employers' attitude at the code hearings added to the fighting mood of ILA delegates to the Pacific Coast District Convention when they met in San Francisco from February 25 to March 6, 1934. The convention immediately named a negotiating committee to meet with the employers' team, led by Thomas G. Plant, chairman of the San Francisco Water Front Employers.

Chairman Plant kept delaying the meeting with the longshoremen until Paddy Morris, Acting Chairman of the Convention, became so upset with dallying that he stepped down from the podium to advise the delegates:

I want to say that this convention should do this: they should instruct that [negotiating committee] to thresh out the full question at issue with them the employers definitely and positively on Monday and give them an ultimatum that unless they agree to meet with us as a district, that there will be no more meetings with them as local employers. And if they refuse to do that on Monday, you can then decide Goddamned quick what you want to do. And then you can go back to your Local with something material and substantial. If you don't do that, you won't have any Locals, I am afraid . 3

This convention listened to Paddy Morris. The delegates instructed the convention negotiating committee to demand: Recognize the ILA District as the official collective bargaining agent or the convention will take a strike vote. When Jack Bjorklund, negotiating team chairman, reported back to the convention that the employers were willing to talk about wages and working conditions, but not on the closed shop situation, the following resolution was proposed:

Whereas, We have given March 7th as a dead line for our employers to comply with our demands, and whereas
We have instructed our committee that in the event our employers do not comply with our demands on said date, that within ten days they shall proceed to take a strike vote, and whereas
President Ryan has requested us to take no drastic action until the 22nd of March on which date we have been informed the Code will be signed, and whereas
He further requests us to forward our strike vote to him to use same in our behalf
Therefore, be it Resolved, that we instruct our Committee that in the event our employers do not comply with our demand by March 7, that they immediately take a strike vote of all Pacific Coast Locals, and
Be it further Resolved, that said strike vote be forwarded to our International President, to use in our behalf, and
Be it further Resolved, that we inform the International President that if our demands are not met by our employers on March 22nd a strike will be called in all Pacific Coast ports at 6a.m. on March 23rd.'

The resolution passed by a resounding voice vote of AYE and the convention adjourned. Up and down the West Coast, a referendum vote by the rank and file to strike carried by a huge majority, with only Anacortes voting against striking. As March 23 approached and there was no progress in negotiations, President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the ILA Pacific Coast District Executive Board to delay the start of the strike.

Roosevelt promised to appoint a fact-finding commission to investigate the controversy and recommend a solution. The ILA Board complied with the President's request and waited. But the President's mediation panel could not find a workable compromise, and on May 9, 1934, 12,500 West Coast longshoremen went on strike. Moreover, this time longshoremen were supported by the seamen, engineers, masters, mates and pilots and other marine unions.

The maritime workers tied up their vessels when they reached port and struck as soon as meetings were convened to approve the strike. As coequal, but separate strikers, the seagoing men demanded higher wages, three instead of two watches, and employer recognition of their respective unions. Thus, the first industry-wide strike in shipping history began.

It was to be a memorable strike that eventually involved nearly 35,000 workers and lasted 83 days.
Immediately union spokesmen went to the press to explain their position to the general public. In Tacoma a committee was formed to carry out that task for the duration of the strike. Named the Tacoma Longshore Press Committee, it was led by Robert Hardin, Paddy Morris, Ernest Tanner and Tiny Thronson. Hoping to gain public support for their cause, this union committee sent the following letter to local newspapers and radio stations:

All we're asking for is a fair shake and if we get that we will be satisfied. We also wish to impress on the minds of the public that we don't like strikes, but we are forced to fight for what we believe are our just dues. We were informed there was to be a code under the National Recovery Act for the shipping industry and that our work would be covered ... The promised code was not forthcoming and there is still none today. A code, however, was given the shipowners and that gave them the edge over us right off the bat.

Then it was proposed by Dr Boris Stearns of the US. Department of Labor that the government supervise and operate the hiring of all longshoremen, and the elimination of our local booking offices in all ports. That was turned down at a convention of Northwest longshoremen held at Portland last winter In December, however, we were given 10 cents an hour raise in basic pay, making 85 cents. We were receiving 90 cents prior to 1931.

Then we were again assured that in the near future the promised code would be signed and the employers would be forced to meet us. On February 25, we held a convention in San Francisco and elected a committee of seven to meet San Francisco employers and shipowners. 7hey refused to recognize our committee as representing the ILA.

It was then that we, through our international president, issued the ultimatum setting March 23 as the time of the strike ... There was ... a telegram from President Roosevelt, who proposed he would find an impartial board. We complied with the President's request and the board was appointed and met with our executive board. The shipowners refused to take part in the conference at first, but were later persuaded by the President's board. They refused point blank to give us any consideration in regard to hours and wages, thus breaking the agreement they made with our organization and the President's board.

We feel that Tacoma Waterfront Employers will agree to our claim that through our work Tacoma has had far more efficiency and far fewer accidents in the loading of ships than at any other

port on the Coast.

Tacoma ILA. Statement Issued Thursday, Noon May 9,1934

Similar statements to newspapers and radio stations were made in all ports as the strike began. Recognition that public opinion was important indicated a growing sophistication by longshoremen in their struggles to beat the employers. No longer did longshoremen simply believe their cause was just and that the public would somehow understand their point of view.

The men now understood that it was necessary to explain repeatedly to the people the circumstances causing the strike and what the goals of the workers were. The general tenor of all longshore publicity during the twelve-week strike stressed that the stoppage was a struggle by workers to achieve job security through the closed shop and union hiring halls.

The West Coast maritime strike became front-page news nationally, and most editors and publishers sided with employers. Their editorials and feature articles repeated management's position that the strike was a Communist plot and longshoremen were being duped by radicals. The subject of Communist control of the ILA was brought up by the employers as early as the meeting between the convention negotiating committee and the waterfront owners before the strike. ILA District Secretary Bjorklund told the
bosses then,

... at Tacoma, these men in question [Communists] were hired by the employers and when trouble broke out they tried to lay the responsibility on us ... It was specifically stated in our Constitution that any man who belonged to a dual organization should be expelled from our organization. So they didn't get away with that. I finally told them that I had been jumped on from hell and back again by the employers and the communists, and that, personally, I was fed up on it.'

The greatest national attention was directed toward the strike in San Francisco. The Bay City was not only the headquarters of the largest ILA local, but also of other maritime unions and most of the shipowners. All maritime crafts became deeply involved in strike activities. There were daily parades on the Embarcadero to draw attention to the cause, and more importantly the joint Marine Strike Committee maintained a full complement of pickets at all San Francisco docks to keep out strikebreakers. Fully aware of the importance of San Francisco as the major testing ground, the ship- ping industry braced itself for another fight to the finish.

The Tacoma Longshoremen's "Flying Squad"

In the Pacific Northwest, strike activity took place mainly in Seattle, Portland and Everett, where police, armed guards, scabs and longshoremen fought sporadically on the docks and in nearby streets. Tacoma escaped most of the violence because Commencement Bay employers made few efforts to import scabs and force the docks open.

Perhaps the reason for the reluctance of the employers to break the picket lines was the formation of a special unit of Tacoma longshoremen called the Flying Squad. When the 1934 strike was only three days old, the Flying Squad participated in scab-clearing on the Seattle docks.

Altogether 600 Tacoma and 200 Everett longshoremen stormed the Seattle waterfront from Nelson Dock to the Bell Street Terminal driving scabs away from employer piers. Led by Henry Brown, Victor Olson, Fred Sellers and George Soule, the Tacoma Flying Squad spent much time in Seattle and other Washington State ports strengthening the ranks of their coworkers whenever employers threatened to open a port with scabs.

Although organized as an official union activity, even the Tacoma Strike Committee did not always know what the Squad was doing. Secrecy was considered essential to success, and staying out of jail.

Evidently, much planning had taken place by Tacoma longshoremen before the strike began. On March 30, 1934, Tacoma Locals 38-30 and 38-3 amalgamated into ILA Local 38-97, thereby ending the long-standing rivalry between lumber handlers and general cargo longshoremen. The merger of the two Tacoma locals clearly meant a united front toward employers. Moreover, the ever busy Paddy Morris was the Tacoma Central Labor Council President in 1934, and on the day the strike began the council passed a motion that if troops are used to break the Longshoremen's strike, the Council will call a general strike.

Washington State Governor Clarence Martin reacted to the Tacoma Central Labor Council announcement by calling a conference on May 16, 1934, which included the shipping employers, the ILA, the Council, State Federation of Labor, and the Teamsters. The meeting turned out to be a failure because employers urged the Governor to use the National Guard to open Washington ports.

The union representatives told Martin to keep his hands off or there would be a general strike from Bellingham to Portland, Oregon. After the meeting, Martin announced that he hoped the men would go back to work under a truce, pending the outcome of federal mediation efforts in San Francisco. Puget Sound longshoremen refused to consider his suggestion of a truce and continued to picket the docks.'

In the midst of the first hectic month, ILA President Joseph P. Ryan invited himself to the West Coast to settle the strike. On May 28, 1934, Ryan, en route to San Francisco, stopped in Tacoma and Seattle where he complimented the men for their magnificent fight. Pressured by the federal government mediation service, employers negotiated with Ryan and ILA Pacific Coast District representatives.
A proposed agreement on May 28, 1934, recognized the ILA, but failed to provide for a coastwide agreement, or the union hiring hall. The longshoremen rejected the proposal decisively when it was sent to the locals for ratification. In fact, the Ryan proposal outraged the Tacoma local. A spokesman for 38-97 told the Tacoma Daily Ledger:

We are right back where we started from. Hours, wages and working conditions we have stated our willingness to arbitrate, but the hiring hall is the vital issue. There can be no compromise with dishonor .

When 95 percent of the longshoremen on the Pacific Coast voted to go on strike, the issue of hiring halls and methods of dispatching the men was the paramount question. The proposition submitted back to us by the employers is not an offer It is an insult to the intelligence of the members.

There can be but one answer and that is absolutely no.'

Undaunted, Ryan entered negotiations again with the employers on June 16, but this time with the assistance of Dave Beck, president of the Seattle Teamsters, and Mike Casey, Beck's counterpart in San Francisco. Both Beck and Casey thought the maritime strike had lasted too long and the strikers should take what they could get from the employers.

Ryan emerged from his meeting with the employers with another settlement very similar to his May 28 agreement, but with a Beck and Casey guarantee binding Teamster unions to cross picket lines if any longshoremen failed to return to work under the provisions of the new settlement.'

Ryan then called upon the San Francisco local to ratify the agreement, but the Golden Gate City strikers turned him down. He immediately flew to Portland, Oregon, and met with the longshore-
men there. The men listened quietly and then shouted down his proposal. Ryan traveled to Tacoma, where he met with the joint Northwest Strike Committee. The ILA President pleaded with the committee to ratify his second settlement.

The strike committee listened politely, but like San Francisco and Portland strikers, the Northwesterners voted Ryan down without a single vote in favor. Walter Freer, chairman of the joint Northwest Strike Committee and also President of the Tacoma ILA local, reported to the press, No body of men can be expected to agree to self-destruction.

When the Teamsters failed to carry out their threat to cross longshore picket lines, and President Ryan declared he was taking a back seat in any further negotiations, the initiative passed to the Pacific Coast District ILA negotiating team of Cliff Thurston from Portland, Paddy Morris and jack Bjorklund of Tacoma, and William J Lewis of San Francisco. At the same time a membership referendum instructed the new team to add to the original demands of ILA recognition, closed shops and union hiring halls, a new proviso that employers must also reach satisfactory settlement with other maritime unions. The employers emphatically rejected the latest ILA Pacific Coast District proposal.

Historically, longshore and maritime strikers were organized in coastwide unions that determined basic strike policy and represented their members in dealing with the government and employers. However, it was understood that the membership of each union had the final say on proposals to and from the employers. In the day-today contest with the employers over all aspects of the 1934 strike, the striking maritime workers were united in joint strike committees in each port. The joint Northwest Strike Committee was composed of representatives of the striking unions in Puget Sound, other Washington ports and Portland.

As the strike continued, Seattle employers and newspapers agitated the public about the plight of starving Alaskans. The joint Northwest Strike Committee decided to release vessels to alleviate the distress. The ILA signed the Alaska Agreement with shipowners on June 8, providing for the closed shop, union hiring hall, the six-hour day and retroactive wages to be arbitrated. The employers also agreed to demands from the seagoing unions, and the vessels were loaded and sent to Alaska from Seattle.

Coinciding with the second round of negotiations between Ryan and the shipowners, the Mayor of Seattle, Charles L. Smith, and a newly formed Tacoma Citizen's Emergency Committee announced on June 15, 1934, a coordinated effort to open their ports by force, if necessary. Mayor Smith proclaimed an emergency and took over personal control of the police force. Then Smith announced he would guarantee police protection to anyone loading or discharging cargo in the Queen City

In Tacoma, the Chairman of the Citizen's Emergency Committee, John Prins, told the Daily Ledger on the same day, June 15, that we are prepared to open the port and afford our languishing industrial and business life some relief Three days later, on June 18, the Citizen's Emergency Committee followed up their first statement with an open letter to waterfront workers:

A MESSAGE TO THE 5000 WORKERS IN TACOMA WHO HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OF WORK BY THE LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE THE PORT OF TACOMA WILL OPEN

This is a definite promise by the Tacoma Citizens Emergency Committee. You, who are eager to work, and have had the opportunity to work until interrupted by this strike, will have the opportunity again-the Port of Tacoma WILL OPEN.

Business was beginning to pick up in Tacoma. Mills and factories were re-opening. Thousands had been called back to their jobs. Then this strike. Factories, unable to receive raw materials and unable to deliver finished products, were compelled to close down.

600 TACOMA LONGSHOREMEN HAVE NO RIGHT NOR WILL THEY BE PERMITTED TO DICTATE THE FUTURE TO 106,000 PEOPLE"

While the Citizen's Emergency Committee was securing Tacoma City Council approval for assigning additional police officers to patrol the docks, Mayor Smith tried to reopen a Seattle pier on June 2 1. The result was a pitched battle at Smith Cove between strikers, scabs, police and armed guards. The police used tear gas and night sticks, and kept Smith Cove open.

The joint Northwest Strike Committee retaliated by suspending their special agreement exempting Alaska shipowners from the closure of the port. As a spokesman for the Strike Committee related to the press, the Alaska deal was based on an agreement that the Mayor and the city would assume a neutral attitude. Alaska Governor John W Troy quickly wired the joint Northwest Strike Committee to please cooperate, but the committee referred the Governor's request to the Seattle Mayor and the employers."

On June 22, the Tacoma Citizen's Emergency Committee decided to reopen the Port of Tacoma. A Tacoma policeman, who was sympathetic toward the strikers, alerted longshoremen that a Greyhound bus filled with scabs was coming from Seattle to Tacoma around 5 a.m. At that early hour the bus pulled up in front of the ILA hall at 14th and Pacific and the strikebreakers transferred to waiting trucks. Longshoremen at the hall did not challenge the scabs.

But down at the Milwaukee dock the Flying Squad and 400 Tacoma strikers were waiting for the strikebreakers. Retired longshoreman Victor Olson remembers that the Flying Squad nailed shut the dock gates so that scabs could not pass through to the piers. Olson also recalled that there was a parley beside the trucks between Tacoma longshoremen, the Seattle scabs, and the local police. The law officers disarmed the scabs of their pistols, blackjacks, tear gas cannisters and baseball bats.

The strikebreakers then climbed aboard the trucks and went back to Seattle. Many years later Olson declared, I'd do it again. I believe in the right to fight for my job.

As strike activity eased in Tacoma, the situation became more tense in Seattle. General strike talk similar to 1919 surfaced as Seattle strikers, aided by Tacoma's Flying Squad, continued to battle police and strikebreakers on the Queen City's waterfront.

The Seattle longshoremen sent a request to the Seattle Central Labor Council asking for a work stoppage by all union labor in the city. Tacoma, Longview, and Portland Central Labor Councils already had expressed their willingness to call a sympathy strike if National Guard troops were sent to the docks. However, in the Seattle Central Labor Council, the Teamsters successfully blocked a vote by the delegates to support longshoremen and marine workers, and general strike discussions died out.

While turmoil continued on the Seattle docks, the Tacoma Citizen's Emergency Committee tried to open the Port of Tacoma again. Chairman John Prins negotiated on June 25 a special agreement with port authorities to supply a berth for scab ships. But Prins' understanding with the Port Commissioners was short-lived when, quite mysteriously, the Port reneged on its promise. At the same time union pickets disappeared from the Port of Tacoma piers.

This action followed a closed-door meeting between the Port COmMiS- sioners and the joint Northwest Strike Committee. Though cha- grined, the Citizen's Emergency Committee claimed credit for the Port-longshore truce once it became public knowledge. Despite renewed attempts by Prins to reopen the port, there was no movement of ships into or out of the harbor.

On the same day the Emergency Committee's agreement with the Port of Tacoma failed, federal mediator Charles A. Reynolds told longshoremen and Alaska employers that a new agreement covering supplies for the Northern Territory must be reached soon or government troops would load chartered ships. Other public officials, as well as the newspapers, decried the longshore embargo of food and medicine for the Alaskans, and by July 3, public opin- ion was turning against the strikers.

On July 5, 1934, the joint Northwest Strike Committee agreed to load Alaskan ships in Tacoma under the terms of the first Alaska agreement. It was also understood that no effort would be made by employers to open Commencement Bay by force.

Concerned that its business would be lost to government-chartered ships, the Alaska Steamship Company acceded to the joint Northwest Strike Committee's demands. The Tacoma Port Commission then authorized use of its docks. On July 6 the first four Alaska steamers arrived at the Tacoma piers with union crews.

As a result of the joint Northwest Strike Committee's victory over Alaska shipowners, longshoremen from Pacific Northwest ports traveled to Tacoma, where they were dispatched from the union hall to work the ships. Half of the wages was paid directly to the men, one-fourth was sent to their local strike committee, and another fourth went to the joint Northwest Strike Committee. The committee sent $2,000 to the San Pedro strikers, $300 to San Francisco, and various amounts to other California locals.

The joint Northwest Strike Committee also set aside $1,500 to organize a coastwide maritime federation that would make permanent the solidarity of the longshoremen with the seagoing unions. Throughout the long strike, discussions took place between the ILA and the Masters, Mates and Pilots; Marine Engineerly, Sailors; Cooks and Stewards; Marine Firemen, and Radio Telegraphers about establishing a united organization for greater strength. By the end of the strike there was universal support for the idea of a federation among all maritime unions.

The End of the 1934 Strike

The lifting of the Alaska shipping embargo ended the Tacoma Citizen's Emergency Committee's campaign to force ihe Port of Tacoma open. The committee announced that the Seattle Waterfront Employers' Union would protect Tacoma's interest in the dispute with the longshoremen and the maritime workers. In turn, the WEU sent a representative to participate in hearings with the newly constituted National Longshoremen's Board (NLB) in San Francisco.

Labor legislation passed by Congress during June 1934 empowered the President to establish boards of investigation and arbitration in labor disputes. The NLB was the first created by Roosevelt under the new federal law. On June 26, President Roosevelt appointed
Archbishop Edward Hanna of San Francisco, Assistant Secretary of Labor Edward F McGrady, and San Francisco attorney Oscar K. Cushing to the NLB to bring the contesting sides together and settle the strike.

But by this time the positions of both the employers and the strikers had hardened to granite. At the NLB hearings longshoremen insisted on the union hiring hall, increased wages and better working conditions, as well as recognition of the marine unions. As expected, the employers adamantly rejected the longshore and marine unions' demands.

With the failure of the first effort by the NLB, the San Francisco employer group now determined to open the Embarcadero even if it took every available police officer in San Francisco. On July 3 employers' trucks rolled out of Pier 38 behind eight police patrol cars. Police Captain Thomas M. Hoertkorn, waving a revolver at pickets, yelled, The port is open!
The strikers surged forward and threw bricks, cobblestones and railroad spikes at the trucks. The police answered with night sticks, tear gas and bullets. The pickets retreated and merged with the crowd. July 4 was quiet, but on July 5, known as Bloody Thursday, one striker and a sympathizer were killed downtown and a mammoth confrontation took place on Rincon Hill. Here the strikers fought with bricks and stones, and the police hurled tear gas and used night sticks on strikers. Finally the battle was over and the police had won."

Within hours of the Rincon Hill battle, national guardsmen took positions along the San Francisco waterfront. The Golden Gate City was particularly tense on July 9 as thousands of longshoremen, other union men and women, and their sympathizers walked silently down Market Street in the funeral procession for the two men who had been killed. The long, solemn march awed many who saw it. The employer history of the strike credits this funeral procession with turning the tide of public opinion in favor of the strikers.

In response to affirmative votes by affiliated unions, the San Francisco Labor Council declared a general strike on July 15, 1934. It was a peaceful and effective strike that lasted three days. Though most of the California newspapers editorialized that the general strike was led by Communists, the general populace
remained sympathetic to the strikers.

On the second day of the general strike, the San Francisco Labor Council debated a resolution calling for arbitration of all out- standing issues between longshoremen and marine workers on the one side and employers on the other. Harry Bridges, Chairman of the San Francisco joint Marine Strike Committee, asked that the hiring hall issue not be included in the arbitration package. However, the Council voted 207 to 180 in favor of arbitrating all issues. On the next day, July 18, the National Longshoremen's Board reacted to the labor council's resolution by offering its services as arbitrator.

The labor council then went a step further and declared on July 19 that the general strike would end, upon acceptance by the shipowners and employers of the striking maritime workers, of the terms
of the President of the Longshoremens Board."

On July 20 the leaders of the waterfront employers and newspaper publishers held a private meeting in a San Francisco suburb. After the meeting, newspapers carried featured stories announcing that the employers would accept arbitration if the ILA also submitted all differences to the NLB.

Shipowners also agreed to elections on all vessels and to accept union recognition if a majority of the seamen voted for the union. Thus, on Saturday evening, July 21, every ILA local on the Pacific Coast voted on whether to submit their differences with the employers to the NLB. The rank and file voted in favor of arbitration 6504 to 1525 and went back to work the next week.

During October 1934, the National Longshoremen's Board announced its decision in the form of an Award. The NLB sought to effect a compromise on the most important issue, the hiring hall.

The hiring of all longshoremen shall be through halls maintained and e dispatcher shall be operated jointly, declared the Board, but
selected by the International Longshoremens Association. While on the surface this section of the Award appeared to be a compromise, in reality longshoremen had won a major victory. The dispatcher was the key to hiring, as owners and the ILA had learned from the 1917 NAC ruling. The government then had taken over the hiring halls and appointed union men as dispatchers with the end result that unions controlled who was sent to work on the docks."

The NLB also created a joint Labor Relations Committee of three employers and the same number of longshoremen to operate each hall. This committee was also required to maintain a list of registered longshoremen who would receive preferential employment over casuals. Grievances by either workers or employers were also resolved by the Labor Relations Committee. Additional ILA gains included wage increases to 95cts an hour straight time and $1.40 for overtime, a shorter week of thirty hours, and a sixhour day.

The longshoremen's allies in the 1934 strike also made significant gains. The marine union elections resulted in recognition and collective bargaining rights for the unions on most coastwise and offshore shipping lines. However, the unions were defeated in elections held on the tanker fleet. The men working for the oil companies voted to stay members of company unions.

Overall, the 1934 strike was a major victory for the marine and longshore unions. Not only had they won most of their demands, but the men had also gained a sense of power and solidarity during the strike that carried their unions to further victories in future negotiations.

Employers did not come away from the NLB Award emptyhanded.

Shipowners and dock managers gained the power to introduce labor saving devices and to institute such methods of discharging and loading cargo as they considered best for the conduct of their businesses. This was the first major Pacific Coast settlement that included a provision concerning mechanization. It was to be an increasingly important issue between longshoremen and owners as new machines began to replace men on the docks and in the ships' holds.", As far as Tacoma was concerned, Local 38-97 was exempted from the joint hiring hall provision mandated by the NLB Award. The Tacomans kept their hall under full union control with their own dispatcher, there by maintaining a pace-setting standard for the rest of the ILA.

The 1934 victory over the employers marked the apex of Tacoma influence in the affairs of Pacific Coast longshoremen. The work of Jack Bjorklund and Paddy Morris in organizing and consolidating the ILA membership into a bastion of labor strength unknown in previous eras had taken fifteen years. But signs of change within the ILA were on the horizon. Ambitious men like Harry Bridges were emerging on the waterfront.

Supported by the large San Francisco local and Communists, Bridges soon sought to wrest control of the ILA Pacific Coast District from the established leadership. It was to be a power struggle with immense consequences, especially for the Tacoma local.

1934 Longshore Strike
Jerry Lembcke, and William M. Tattam, "The 1934 Longshore Strike," One Union in Wood, a political history of the International Woodworkers of America. New York: Harcourt, 1984 p. 28-30.

Until 1934, a longshoreman's job security was tied to the paternalism of the work-crew foreman; whisky, money and other assorted favors guaranteed jobs. Men milled about outside company offices at early morning shape-ups until a signal from the boss indicated that they had been selected for the day's stevedoring.

Then, in May, 1934, the jurisdiction of the company unions which were maintained by the West Coast shippers was challenged by the International Longshoremen's Association, An. The Waterfront Employers'Association of San Francisco refused the iLA's demands for union recognition, a dollar an hour wage, a thirty-hour week and a unioncontrolled hiring hall.

Led by Harry Bridges in San Francisco, longshoremen retaliated by shutting down the waterfronts from San Diego to Seattle and pressing for a coast-wide working agreement.

From May 9 to July 31, 1934, docks along the Pacific Northwest were controlled by the striking longshoremen. Normal shipments of lumber and agricultural products were curtailed, and sawmills were forced to close when lumber could no tonger be shipped by water. By June, with no end in sight, 17,000 lumber workers were laid off and payrolls were slashed almost in half.

However, members of the National Lumber Workers Union solicited funds for the longshoremen and spoke in favor of the strike; as a result, lumber and sawmill workers supported the strike and did not scab despite their own desperate straits. Even the big mills at Longview, Washington ground to a halt when for four days, beginning June 19, 1934, sawmill workers there went out on strike in sympathy with the longshoremen .

On July 3, San Francisco businessmen announced that their trucks and drivers would move through the picket lines to the piers along the Embarcadero and remove the goods stranded there since the strike began. Longshoremen attacked the trucks with bricks, and police retaliated with clubs, tear gas and gunfire.

Two days later, on Bloody Thursday, the Battle of Rincon Hill left two longshoremen shot to death by the police, thirty wounded and forty-three more either clubbed, gassed or stoned. Four days later, 15,000 longshoremen and sympathizers marched up Market Street behind a flat-bed truck carrying the coffins of the slain longshoremen Union sympathies were now cemented, and on July 16 a three-day general strike began in San Francisco .

Anti-radical hysteria engendered by the general strike spread quickly. West Coast police departments sided unequivocally with the shippers and invested themselves with the kind of patriotic fervor reminiscent of the Palmer Raids of the early 1920s. On the first day of the San Francisco general strike, Portland police searched freight trains arriving from the south in an attempt to head off a feared invasion by "flying squadrons" of communist agitators; 130 men, mostly hoboes and migrant workers, were taken into custody.

Two reputed labor agitators, who supposedly planned to "radicalize" the local longshore strike by promoting a general strike, were also found on the train.

When local shipping companies demanded protection in order to continue loading ships along Portland's strike-bound waterfront, Oregon Governor Julius Meier ordered 1,000 National Guardsmen to mobilize immediately. Fortunately, the troops remained camped on the outskirts of the city after the Central Labor Council threatened to call an immediate general strike if the Guardsmen moved to the waterfront .
Between July 16 and 21, 1934, even though the San Francisco general strike had ended and the ILA had agreed to arbitration, the Portland police continued their searches and seizures. Private residences, Communist Party headquarters, and the Marine Workers Industrial Union hall were raided. Union records and Communist literature were seized and taken to the police station.

Three men were arrested for advocating criminal syndication, and thirty-two others were taken in for violations of the Oregon Criminal Syndication Act of 1919. All of those arrested were closely associated with the Communist Party and had worked with the Unemployed Councils to keep the unemployed from crossing the longshoremen's picket lines .

Dirk DeJonge, once the Communist Party's candidate for Mayor of Portland, was tried and sentenced on November 21, 1934 to seven years in prison. The charges brought against him included advocating violence during the longshore strike, being in possession of Communist Party literature, and conducting and attending Communist Party meetings.

After the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the conviction and Dirk DeJonge had spent nine months in the Oregon State penitentiary, the United States Supreme Court, on January 4, 1937, unanimously decided that the lower courts had erred in convicting him. The Court held "that the Oregon state law as applied to the particular charge as defined by the state court is repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment".

The results of the 1934 longshore strike did not pass unnoticed by loggers and sawmill workers. The joint control of hiring halls with employers, the thirty-hour work week, wage increases and exclusive bargaining rights won by the longshoremen constituted notable union victories.

More importantly, however, the organization of the longshoremen meant that woodworkers had a strong ally for their own union activities. The two groups of workers were closely linked through family and occupational associations, while the Communist Party tied together the activists in both unions. If the woodworkers struck, it seemed a virtual certainty that the longshoremen would support them.

LONGSHOREMAN'S STRIKE OF 1934.
Gordon Newell, "The Longshoreman's Strike of 1934," H.W. McCurdy Marine History of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: Superior Publishing Company, 1966, p. 428.

In June [1934] Mayor John Dore, an avowed friend of labor, retired as mayor of Seattle, and was replaced by Charles L. Smith a more conservative type. Perhaps recalling the nationwid; publicity which had accrued to Mayor Ole Hanson when he claimed to have broken the Seattle general strike of 1919, Mayor Smith prepared a compromise agreement which he submitted to the unions on a "take it or leave it" basis.

When the strikers decided to leave it he issued a proclamation that, as of June 21, Seattle was an open port, a move which had been successfully made at Los Angeles, with the result that former Puget Sound, Columbia River and San Francisco cargo was moving from that port, as well as from those of British Columbia.

The Seattle police chief soon afterward tendered his resignation and Mayor Smith took personal charge of the police. On June 21 a force of 250 policemen broke the picket line at the Smith Cove piers, mounted patrolmen leading the attack with swinging clubs. Non-union crews immediately began discharging cargo from the Donaldson Iiine European freighter Modavia and the Everett of the Tacoma Oriental Steamship Co. The unions immediately repicketed the Alaska vessels and the I. L. A. asked other Seattle unions to join a general strike in protest, a plan which was foiled by the refusal of Dave Beck, Northwest head of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, to cooperate.

Pickets displaced from Smith Cove transferred their activities to the employers' non - union hiring halls at the Smith Tower and Alaska Building, taking forthright measures to discourage prospective strikebreakers from entering. Within a week the unions agreed to permit Alaska sailings to be resumed, but only from Tacoma, and only upon the understanding that no effort would be made by governmental officials there to reopen the port to general shipping.

Violence was fast reaching its peak. At San Francisco a pitched battle between police, strikers and sympathizers resulted in 34 persons being shot, two fatally, and about 40 others gassed or badly beaten. Shots were fired by Portland police when 500 strikers attacked a locomotive attempting to move tank cars from the Union and Shell Oil Co. plants. A number of strikers were beaten by police clubs, a number of policemen seriously injured by rocks and bricks.

By mid July, vessels were still handling cargo at Smith Cove under heavy police guard, although picketers skirmished continually with guards, sometimes evading them and succeeding in beating up non-union longshoremen, ship's officers, or others observed violating the line. Steve Watson, one of the ,'special deputies" of the Citizens' Emergency Committee of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, was shot and killed in mob violence at 3rd and Seneca, in the heart of "uptown" Seattle. At this point the major issue remaining was the question of whether longshore hiring halls should be controlled entirely by the union or operated jointly by labor and management. President Roosevelt appointed an arbitration board to settle this issue and departed on a three-month vacation. It was finally agreed that the strike would be called off, pending arbitration of the remaining issues. All unions returned to work on August 1 but immediately walked out again on behalf of the maritime unions.

The truce agreement provided that all men employed after May 16 who had not previously followed the sea should be dismissed, but that men on the ships as of May 16 who had previously been employed at sea could be retained. The marine unions demanded that all personnel who had remained on the ships during the strike should be discharged.

The unions, after the brief walkout agreed that they had misinterpreted the agreement and work was resumed the following morning.

The position of the longshoremen's unions was strengthened in the 1934 strikes by their recognition, for the first time, as bargaining agents under the National Recovery Act (NRA). The maritime unions were not particularly effective during the 1934 strike, but as a result of the longshoremen's success (and NRA) they quickly became powerful in their own right.

The 84 -day period of economic stagnation and violence had ended, but its scars were a long time healing. The bitter ness of the .1934 strike was repeated during the next few years in a period of labor unrest such as has never been recorded in the history of the Pacific Northwest, before or since.

Foreign steamship operators were forced to route their vessels and cargoes via British Columbia ports during the long tie-up of American ports and some of them, having transferred their major Northwest functions north of the border, retained them there. Indicative of the tremendous advantage enjoyed by Canada during the strike is the lumber shipment barometer.

A total of only 2,748,920,847 feet was shipped from all Northwest ports. Washington exports total ed only 1,294,942,925 feet, a figure which Grays Harbor alone had approached during the boom years, and a decline of over a quarter of a billion feet over the depression figures of 1933.

Oregon shipments dropped to 594,513,208 feet, but British Columbia, a negligible factor in predepression figures, showed almost a 30% gain in 1934 over 1933, reaching a total of 859,464,714 feet, approaching the Washington figure and far exceeding that of Oregon. This was a trend which was to continue to the present time.

Gordon Newell, "The Longshoreman's Strike of 1934," H.W. McCurdy Marine History of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: Superior Publishing Company, 1966, p. 428.
***“You Know How To Whistle, Don’t You?”-Lauren Bacall And Humphrey Bogart’s To Have And Have Not





DVD Review

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

To Have And Have Not, starring Lauren Bacall, Humphrey Bogart, Walter Brennan, Hoagy Carmichael, directed by Howard Hawks, screenplay by William Faulkner, based on the novel by Ernest Hemingway, 1944-Take Two  

The recent passing away of the actress Lauren Bacall (Summer, 2014) prompted me to think about watching (again) her very first movie with her paramour met on the film then, Humphrey Bogart, the now classic To Have and Have Not. And so I did and reminded myself how that film has always been at the top of my list for the greatest films that I have seen. And why not. Look at the pedigree. Based on a novel by Ernest Hemingway, although in the end quite loosely for I do not believe a fox like Marie, the role Ms. Bacall plays in the film, would have stayed in the same room as the novel’s Captain Morgan for a minute. Moreover rather than being a guy who in the end tried to work on the same street as the angels the book’s Captain had no such lofty notions. Like the Hemingway short story The Killers that was also made into a film with Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner the screenwriters, directors, and producers played loose and free with the story line. Based on a screenplay at least in part written by William Faulkner who had a feel for such dialogue (and who I believe did not like Hemingway and maybe it was mutual and might go a long way toward explaining how Hemingway’s  grizzly sea saga out of cheap street turned into a hot romance-driven vehicle.

How about some musical interludes played by the great popular Midwestern-born composer (Stardust, How Little We Know), Hoagy Carmichael, as the worldly and world wary piano player, Cricket, at the bar of the hotel where Marie and Captain Morgan (Bogie’s role and Steve before long, before she gets her hooks into him, gets them in deep, after about two minutes and a couple of off-hand come hither looks his way) play out their dance. Not only does Hoagy provide the musical interludes in the club but along the way apparently Marie in her vaguely acknowledged checkered background which included some tough times also could sing for her supper and snags Steve with that look, that slight smile that had him thinking bedroom thoughts (or maybe it was me thinking that is what Steve should have been thinking) singing How Little We Know. Hell, had every guy in the room thinking those bedroom thoughts, even the guys lined up at the bar trying to drown their sorrows. Add in a very good performance by Walter Brennan as Eddie, a drunk who at one time could have navigated with the best of them but rum got the better of him like many a sea-faring man, who thinks he is watching out for the good captain. Directed as well by the well-regarded Howard Hawks who had even then a long list of film credits next to his name and who seems to have just let Lauren and Bogie go through their paces once the passion thermometer heats up the screen.    

But all of that credit acknowledgement is so much eye-wash for what makes this film great is the chemistry between Marie and Steve. Chemistry I have mentioned elsewhere in another review of a Bacall-Bogart collaboration, The Big Sleep, producing some of the sexiest scenes that two people can make with their clothes on. (Nudity would detract enormously from this mating ritual. Beside, unlike in pre-code 1930s Hollywood, no such thing would occur before the screen. Christ they were by then afraid to show assumed nudity scenes behind a shower curtain and usually gave married couples twin beds. Jesus.)              

Even the plotline pales before the dance these two put on. Frankly some of the story seems a bit of a rehash of the earlier Bogart vehicle (with Ingrid Bergman), Casablanca, where a recalcitrant world weary, jaded Rick, owner of Rick’s American Café and recovering from a lost love affair gets involved with the Free French (the good guy against the damn Vichy) as well. (Although working through his resume he had fought in Spain as a premature anti-fascist, always a plus in my book for good deeds.) Here day sports fishing boat Captain Morgan walks into the same kind of local political mess except in French Martinique (Vichy-controlled) rather than French Morocco (also Vichy-controlled). But not before shedding his doubts about taking such risks, and of course when Marie enters the scene by coyly asking him for a match for her cigarette you know those fears will fall by the wayside. (By the way it seems that they, everybody from the breakfast table to the smoke-filled night clubs are lighting cigarettes every two seconds reminding me of how much smoking went on then in the movies, and in life including mine.)

See Steve is strictly hand to mouth on this day fishing trip business depending on rich American tourists and sport’s fisherman to make his daily bread. (By the way Captain Morgan to you guys who don’t know him like those bad guy Vichy officials trying to round up once and for all those damn Gaullist Free French who interrogate Steve and Marie after some gun-play at the club when Free French agents try to hire Steve’s boat to help get a major resistance leader off Devil’s Island (see I told you the plot- line was familiar, shades of getting Victor Lazlo out of Casablanca in the film by the same name).  Right when Marie and Steve meet after she takes a room across from him in the in hotel after coming in by plane from parts unknown with funds from unknown sources (but the modern reader can guess) he has no dough having been stiffed by some goof fisherman (and a guy Marie clipped a wallet from which started the official dance between them down in the club). Once Marie tells her story though and how she hold up when the chips are down (at the police station where they are questioned by those local gestapo-types and she is slapped and later when she performs nurse duties without flinching or losing her cool under pressure) gets to him in the end.

Naturally once Steve moves off the dime he is totally committed to seeing that reckless resistance fighter sent to get the leader off Devils’ Island who got nicked the first time he tried gets to finish the job he was sent to that outpost to do. Still World War II big events, the world going up in flames, everybody forced one way or the other to take sides, and the troubles of a couple of lovers aside like I say all that is window-dressing for the moves Marie and Steve put on each other. From that first tossed matchbook when Marie need a match and Steve obliges with a double-take and she flaunts that wicked smile which speaks of adventures to come, come under satin sheets of the mind, to various “come hither” scenes to the ‘you know how to whistles scene” to her flopping down on his lap on their first kiss exchange to her seductively singing with Cricket to that shimmy she puts on as they walk out the door of the bar off to see what the future brings, Eddie trailing behind carrying her bags-together. Thanks Bogie-Thanks Lauren-RIP        

As The 100th Anniversary Of The Beginning of World War I (Remember The War To End All Wars) Starts ... Some Remembrances-Russian Revolutionary Leon Trotsky On The Anti-War Movement From War And The International   

 


The events leading up to World War I from the massive military armament of almost all the capitalist and imperialist parties in Europe and elsewhere in order to stake their claims to their unimpeded share of the world’s resources to the supposedly eternal pledges by the Social-Democrats and other militant leftist formations representing the historic interest of the international working-class to stop those parties in their tracks at the approach of war were decisive for 20th century history. The ability to inflict industrial-sized slaughter and mayhem on a massive scale first portended toward the end of the American Civil War once the Northern industrial might tipped the scales their way almost could not be avoided in the early 20th century once the armaments race got serious, and the technology seemed to grow exponentially with each new turn in the war machine.

The land war, the war carried out by the “grunts,” by the “cannon fodder” of many nations was only the tip of the iceberg and probably except for the increased cannon-power and rapidity of the machine-guns would be carried out by the norms of the last war. However the race for naval supremacy, or the race to take a big kink out of British supremacy, went on unimpeded as Germany tried to break-out into the Atlantic world and even Japan, Jesus, Japan tried to gain a big hold in the Asia seas. The deeply disturbing submarine warfare wreaking havoc on commerce on the seas, the use of armed aircraft and other such technological innovations of war only added to the frenzy. We can hundred years ahead, look back and see where talk of “stabs in the back” by the losers and ultimately an armistice rather than decisive victory on the blood-drenched fields of Europe would lead to more blood-letting but it was not clear, or nobody was talking about it much, or, better, doing much about calling a halt before they began among all those “civilized” nations who went into the abyss in July of 1914. Sadly the list of those who would not do anything, anything concrete, besides paper manifestos issued at international conferences, included the great bulk of the official European labor movement which in theory was committed to stopping the madness.

A few voices, voices like Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in Germany, Lenin and Trotsky in Russia, some anti-war anarchists like Monette in France and here in America Big Bill Haywood and the stalwart Eugene V. Debs, were raised and one hundred years later those voices have a place of honor in this space. Those voices, many of them in exile, or in the deportations centers, were being clamped down as well as the various imperialist governments began closing their doors to political refugees when they were committed to clapping down on their own anti-war citizens. As we have seen in our own times, most recently in America in the period before the “shock and awe” of the decimation of Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 the government, most governments, are able to build a war frenzy out of whole cloth. At those times, and in my lifetime the period after 9/11 when we tried in vain to stop the Afghan war in its tracks is illustrative, to be a vocal anti-warrior is a dicey business. A time to keep your head down a little, to speak softly and wait for the fever to subside and to be ready to begin the anti-war fight another day. So imagine in 1914 when every nationality in Europe felt its prerogatives threatened how the fevered masses would not listen to the calls against the slaughter. Yes, one hundred years later is not too long to honor those ardent anti-war voices as the mass mobilizations began in the countdown to war.                   

Over the next period as we lead up to the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I and beyond I will under this headline post various documents, manifestos and cultural expressions from that time in order to give a sense of what the lead up to that war looked like, the struggle against its outbreak before, the forlorn struggle during and the massive struggles in order to create a newer world out of the shambles of the battlefields.     

 

Free Chelsea Manning Now!

 

Our new whistle and dogtags logo!

manning-logo-color500
August 28, 2014.
The Chelsea Manning Support Network is pleased to announce our new campaign logo. Supporters submitted over a dozen great designs, and we received great feedback via our Facebook page on the final designs.
Please feel free to download the PDF via our Graphic Resources page and use it to print your own banners, shirts, etc. You can also use the PDF to print one-of-a-kind items via on-demand online printers, such as CafePress and Zazzle (you have our permission).
We are also having union labor silk-screen quality USA-made, sweatshop-free, black shirts (basic and women’s styles) that are now available for pre-order. We have a few stickers in the works as well.
These small vector PDF files scale well from a small sticker up to billboard size!

As The 100th Anniversary Of The First Year Of World War I (Remember The War To End All Wars) Continues ... Some Remembrances-Poet’s Corner-Italian Poets   

Italian War Poetry

Contribution

This is a contributed item. Please direct your feedback concerning the contents of this item to the author using the e-mail link below. By all means let them know if you find it interesting. They enjoy hearing from you!


image
Attacking Bersaglieri
Contributed by Michael E. Hanlon (medwardh@hotmail.com)

Contributed by Michael E. Hanlon. Mike is Website Editor for the ø The Great War Society. He has written extensively on the Great War and guided tours of the Western Front.

Annotations and biographical sketches have been contributed by Michael E. Hanlon. The translations are from the PENGUIN BOOK OF WORLD WAR I POETRY edited by Jon Silkin.


GIUSEPPE UNGARETTI, 1888-1970
A literary minimalist, Giuseepe Ungaretti is considered by some critics the greatest Italian poet of the 20th Century. He served an infantryman on the lower Isonzo front with the 3rd Army from 1915 until early 1918. In the spring, he was transferred to the Western Front where Italian forces fought with distinction. In his most famous war poem, RIVERS, he alludes to his birth in Egypt, his youth in Tuscany and his service on both fronts during the Great War. Ungaretti's pure style was achieved by condensation to essentials and is in the tradition of the French Symbolists. His works are collected in the 2 volumes of LIFE OF A MAN portions of which are available in English translation.
VIGIL

A whole night long
crouched close
to one of our men
butchered
with his clenched 
mouth
grinning at the full moon 
with the congestion
of his hands
thrust right
into my silence
I've written
letters filled with love

I have never been
so
coupled to life
Cima Quattro, 23-Dec-1915
BROTHERS

What regiment d'you belong to
brothers?

Word shaking
in the night

Leaf barely born

In the simmering air 
involuntary revolt
of the man present at his
brittleness

Brothers
Mariano, 11-Jul-1916
I AM A CREATURE

Like this stone of 
San Michele

as cold
as hard
as thoroughly dried

as refractory
as deprived of spirit

Like this stone
is my weeping that can't
be seen

Living
discounts death
Valloncello di Cima Quattro, 5-Aug-1916
SAN MARTINO DEL CARSO

Of these houses 
nothing 
but fragments of memory

Of all who
would talk with me not
one remains

But in my heart
no one's cross is missing
My heart is
the most tormented country of all
Valloncello dell' Albergo Isolato, 27-Aug-1916
ITALY

I am a poet, a unanimous
cry, am
a cleat of dreams

a fruit
of innumerable conflicting grafts
ripened in the hothouse

But the same earth bears
your people
as carries me

Italy

In this, the uniform
of your soldier, I rest
as if
it were the cradle
of my father

Cease murdering the dead.
If you hope not to perish, if you
Want sound of them again,
Stop crying out, cease
The crying out of it.

They have a barely heard whispering,
No more than the increase of grass,
Happy where no man passes.
RIVERS

This mutilated tree gives
Me support, left in this pot-hole
It has the bitterness of a circus
Before or after the show.
I watch
The quiet passage of
Clouds over the moon.

This morning I stretched
Myself in an urn of water,
Like a relic, and rested.

The Isonzo scoured
Me like
One of its stones.

I pulled my four 
limbs together,
And went, like an acrobat,
Over the water.

Crouched by my clothes
Fouled with war, I inclined
My head, like a Bedouin,
To receive the sun.

This is the Isonzo.
And it is there I 
Most see myself
In the universe
A compliant
Thread.

My pain is
When I do not believe
Myself in harmony.

But those hidden
Hands give as they knead me
A rare joy.

I have relived
The stages of my life.

The Serchio: from
Which have drawn, perhaps
For two thousand years
My country people, my father, 
My mother.

This is the Nile
That has seen me be born,
And grow 
And burn in ignorance on
Extending plains.

This is the Seine; and I mingled
In that muddiness learning each
Part of all myself.

These are my rivers confluent
In the Isonzo.

This is my nostalgia
That in each
One shines through me, now
It is night, and my life seems
A budding
Off of shades.
 

 

As The 100th Anniversary Of The First Year Of World War I (Remember The War To End All Wars) Continues ... Some Remembrances-Russian Revolutionary Leon Trotsky On The Anti-War Movement From War And The International 
 
   

The events leading up to World War I from the massive military armament of almost all the capitalist and imperialist parties in Europe and elsewhere in order to stake their claims to their unimpeded share of the world’s resources to the supposedly eternal pledges by the Social-Democrats and other militant leftist formations representing the historic interest of the international working-class to stop those parties in their tracks at the approach of war were decisive for 20th century history. The ability to inflict industrial-sized slaughter and mayhem on a massive scale first portended toward the end of the American Civil War once the Northern industrial might tipped the scales their way almost could not be avoided in the early 20th century once the armaments race got serious, and the technology seemed to grow exponentially with each new turn in the war machine.

The land war, the war carried out by the “grunts,” by the “cannon fodder” of many nations was only the tip of the iceberg and probably except for the increased cannon-power and rapidity of the machine-guns would be carried out by the norms of the last war. However the race for naval supremacy, or the race to take a big kink out of British supremacy, went on unimpeded as Germany tried to break-out into the Atlantic world and even Japan, Jesus, Japan tried to gain a big hold in the Asia seas. The deeply disturbing submarine warfare wreaking havoc on commerce on the seas, the use of armed aircraft and other such technological innovations of war only added to the frenzy. We can hundred years ahead, look back and see where talk of “stabs in the back” by the losers and ultimately an armistice rather than decisive victory on the blood-drenched fields of Europe would lead to more blood-letting but it was not clear, or nobody was talking about it much, or, better, doing much about calling a halt before they began among all those “civilized” nations who went into the abyss in July of 1914. Sadly the list of those who would not do anything, anything concrete, besides paper manifestos issued at international conferences, included the great bulk of the official European labor movement which in theory was committed to stopping the madness.

A few voices, voices like Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in Germany, Lenin and Trotsky in Russia, some anti-war anarchists like Monette in France and here in America Big Bill Haywood and the stalwart Eugene V. Debs, were raised and one hundred years later those voices have a place of honor in this space. Those voices, many of them in exile, or in the deportations centers, were being clamped down as well as the various imperialist governments began closing their doors to political refugees when they were committed to clapping down on their own anti-war citizens. As we have seen in our own times, most recently in America in the period before the “shock and awe” of the decimation of Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 the government, most governments, are able to build a war frenzy out of whole cloth. At those times, and in my lifetime the period after 9/11 when we tried in vain to stop the Afghan war in its tracks is illustrative, to be a vocal anti-warrior is a dicey business. A time to keep your head down a little, to speak softly and wait for the fever to subside and to be ready to begin the anti-war fight another day. So imagine in 1914 when every nationality in Europe felt its prerogatives threatened how the fevered masses would not listen to the calls against the slaughter. Yes, one hundred years later is not too long to honor those ardent anti-war voices as the mass mobilizations began in the countdown to war.                   

Over the next period as we lead up to the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I and beyond I will under this headline post various documents, manifestos and cultural expressions from that time in order to give a sense of what the lead up to that war looked like, the struggle against its outbreak before, the forlorn struggle during and the massive struggles in order to create a newer world out of the shambles of the battlefields.     

Friday, September 26, 2014


From The Labor History Archives -In The 80th Anniversary Year Of The Great San Francisco, Minneapolis And Toledo General Strikes- Lessons In The History Of Class Struggle 

75 years since the San Francisco general strike

By Marge Holland and Robert Louis
18 September 2009
On May 9, 1934, San Francisco longshoremen went out on strike against West Coast ship owners, igniting a movement of 35,000 maritime workers of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) that shut down 2,000 miles of Pacific coastline from Bellingham, Washington, to San Diego, California.
Driven by the determination and militancy of the rank and file, this 83-day struggle defied the employers’ Industrial Association of San Francisco, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s federal mediators, the conservative American Federation of Labor (AFL) union leadership, and culminated in the San Francisco general strike.
The San Francisco strike combined with two other momentous labor struggles in 1934 to alter the American political landscape—the Toledo Auto-Lite strike led by socialists in the American Workers Party, and the Minneapolis truck drivers strike led by Trotskyists in the Communist League of America. These three strikes—which were, in essence, rebellions not only against business interests but also against the business unionism of the AFL—paved the way for the pivotal victories of Detroit auto workers in sit-down strikes led by socialist-minded workers in 1937 and the formation of the mass industrial unions in the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations.)

Background to the strike

The events on the San Francisco waterfront in 1934 were the culmination of years of struggle by maritime workers against the ship owners and business interests grouped in the Industrial Association, which had been founded in 1921 to spearhead the anti-union, open-shop drive in San Francisco.
For more than 14 years, the longshoremen (or stevedores) on the Pacific Coast had been separated by craft unions and individual port agreements. In San Francisco, a company hiring structure prevailed. For workers, this meant poverty wages, unsafe work and irregular employment.
In 1919, the US erupted in the largest strike wave to that point in its history, with nearly four million workers, or one-fifth of the nation’s labor force, walking off their jobs in the course of the year. One of the most electrifying of these struggles was the Seattle general strike of 1919, which proclaimed its solidarity with the Russian Revolution.
For five days, the city was virtually run by the General Strike Committee. In Seattle and San Francisco, dockworkers refused to handle weapons destined for the pro-capitalist and Czarist White Guard forces trying to crush the new workers state. [1]
San Francisco's dockworkers were then organized in the Riggers and Stevedores Association, a loose affiliate of the ILA. In 1919, longshoremen aimed to secure control over the work of loading and unloading. They struck against speed-up, which, combined with automation, made the pace of work unbearable. The men demanded lighter sling loads, an increase in the size of work gangs from twelve to sixteen men, and a share in company ownership.
The strike failed, as did another ILA-led struggle in 1921. A concerted offensive by the ship owners for the open shop followed. The owners formed a business union, the Waterfront Employers Union (WEA), which drove out the ILA and signed a “closed shop” contract, making itself the only union on the docks. It was officially called the Longshoremen’s Association of San Francisco and the Bay District, but to workers it was known as the “Blue Book” union for the color of its dues book.
After its triumph, the WEA signed a five-year agreement that featured a 10 percent wage cut. Speedup continued, and the notorious “shape up” system of casual on-site hiring was introduced. After 1919, only holders of the blue book could get jobs, and the WEA had the power to replace and blacklist workers. Although attempts were made in the 1920s to revive the ILA, the Blue Book dominated the lives of dockworkers for the next 14 years.[2][3]
In 1929, the AFL expelled the ILA-affiliated Riggers and Stevedores Association, in existence since 1853, and allowed the Blue Book “union” to enter the Labor Council.
Militant workers sought out different forms of organization. Among the veterans of the 1919 and 1921 strikes were members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), including the future leader of the San Francisco dockworkers, Harry Bridges. The IWW championed revolutionary industrial unionism in opposition to the corrupt AFL craft unions. After the strike defeats, the IWW was able to attract large numbers of seamen and longshoremen away from the AFL.
In April 1923, IWW workers organized in the Marine Transport Workers Industrial Union (MTW) called a general strike that received significant support among Pacific Coast marine, lumber and oil workers, as well as some construction workers. The principal demand was for the “release of class war prisoners,” coupled with separate economic demands for each industry. The IWW strike ultimately failed under the weight of court injunctions, mass arrests of strikers, and vigilantism by the Ku Klux Klan and the American Legion.[4]
By the early 1930s, two factions of the Communist Party began to carry out work among the longshoremen. The CPUSA had little success in an attempt to form an independent union, called the Marine Workers Industrial Union (MWIU.) The CPUSA was then in its ultra-left “Third Period.” Its unionization effort exhibited little interest in the actual conditions confronting workers, while it dismissed the AFL unions as “social fascist.”
In 1934, a group of Communists led by Sam Darcy took control of the CPUSA’s newspaper for longshoremen, the Waterfront Worker, making it a voice for industrial unionism. Bridges came under the influence of the CPUSA at this time, likely becoming a member.
The Great Depression was creating conditions favoring the growth of radicalism and militant struggle. According to a “Special Census of Unemployment” in January 1931, the number of unemployed workers in San Francisco increased from 24,467 in 1930 to 46,045 in 1931—a 47 percent increase in one year. From 1929 to 1930, expenditure for relief aid increased by 29.2 percent. However, by 1934 it had increased by 2,308 percent, and the number of families on relief increased 818 percent over 1929. [5]
More than 50 percent of all longshoremen were on the relief rolls. With irregular work, the vast majority of maritime workers were trying to live on an average subsistence wage of $10 a week. [6]
For longshoremen fortunate enough to have retained their jobs, the central grievance remained the “shape up.” At the crack of dawn, rain or shine, men hoping for work would assemble across from the piers on the Embarcadero and wait for the gang bosses to come out and announce how many men they needed and for how long. Sometimes the men would work a whole day, sometimes a few hours, sometimes as many as 24-36 hours straight.
Employment was intermittent, unpredictable and casual. The men were by turns out of work and forced to work long hours without a break. If they complained or got injured, they were fired. These conditions were compounded by bribery and discrimination. Workers who were known to have supported a union were blacklisted on the docks, while those who did favors or kept the gang bosses supplied with liquor were chosen for the best jobs. This condition was the norm up and down the West Coast.
Dock workers were, practically speaking, part-time, casual labor, with no guarantee of a regular wage. There were no regularly enforced safety standards and many men sustained serious, in some cases fatal, injuries.

The strike

In the second half of 1933, over 95 percent of San Francisco dockworkers joined the AFL’s newly revived ILA Local 38-79. This success was repeated up and down the Pacific Coast. However, ship owners refused to recognize the union or negotiate.
In early March 1934, the ILA, under immense rank-and-file pressure, issued a demand that the shape up be abolished and replaced by a union-controlled hiring hall. If the demand was not accepted within two weeks, the San Francisco longshoremen would strike.
In response, the Blue Book WEA made a vague offer to cooperate with the ILA and open a dispatching hall under unspecified control. When the ILA leaders agreed with this proposal, the membership removed the local president for being “too conservative.” [7]
Frightened over the implications of a shutdown of West Coast shipping in the midst of the Depression, Roosevelt on March 23 succeeded in getting the ILA to agree to a strike postponement, which lasted six weeks. This delay gave the ship owners and their allies time to prepare.
Finally, on May 9, 1934, members of the ILA struck up and down the Pacific Coast. Within days, other maritime workers joined the strike. By the middle of May, some 35,000 waterfront workers were off the job, shutting down or limiting traffic at virtually all West Coast ports.
The workers’ central demand remained the union-controlled hiring hall, coupled with a closed shop and a Pacific Coast-wide bargaining agreement. Workers refused to place these issues in the hands of government arbitration. With their own hiring hall, the dockers felt they could achieve more steady, equal hours of work and significant control over the pace of work, which would mean fewer injuries and deaths.
Workers also demanded a six-hour day, a thirty-hour week, and $1 an hour in wages with overtime at $1.50.
To direct the strike, workers set up a Joint Marine Strike Committee composed of ten maritime unions. Harry Bridges, with the support of the CPUSA, was selected chairman. The strike committee insisted that no one would settle and return to work until the main demands of all the maritime crafts were met.
The employers, backed by federal, state and local officials, responded with a campaign of red-baiting and intimidation. They mobilized hundreds of police and thugs to attack the large picket lines. Hundreds of strikebreakers were housed aboard ships moored in the bay, but their usefulness was limited when truck drivers refused to move cargo.
Truck drivers offered critical assistance to the strikers in spite of the Teamsters Union leadership. When a delegation headed by Bridges endeavored to obtain Teamsters consent for bringing this most powerful union into the Joint Marine Strike Committee, Teamsters President Michael Casey refused to even consider it. [8] [9]
The longshoremen faced the behind-the-scenes resistance of their own union leadership. In mid-May, and again in June, the Roosevelt administration's labor mediator, Edward McGrady, concluded sellout deals with ILA national head Joseph Ryan. Both agreements left the issues of wages and hours dependent on arbitration and excluded the demands for a union-controlled hiring hall and closed shop, and a settlement that included all the crafts on strike. [10]
Ryan traveled to San Francisco from New York in an attempt to negotiate a capitulation to the employers independently of the strike committee and the rank and file. On June 16, Ryan and Casey met with the WEA “Blue Book” in Mayor Angelo Rossi’s office and arrived at an agreement that did not support any of the main demands except union recognition. Casey accepted this settlement and offered to resume the movement of cargo from the docks, telling reporters, “Our men will return to work Monday morning [June 18], regardless of what action is taken by the longshoremen at their Sunday meeting.” [11]
Ryan tried to get some of the ports to settle separately. But when he presented his deal to general meetings in the main ports, it was unanimously repudiated. At the San Francisco ratification meeting there was a loud rejection of the agreement and Ryan was booed off the platform. He left town denouncing the workers, declaring, “The [International] Longshoreman’s Association is dominated by the radical elements and Communists… .” [12]
At the end of June, the employers, with tens of millions of dollars of goods piled up on the piers, decided to open the ports by other means.

Bloody Thursday

PolicemanPoliceman attacks worker during the strike.
On July 5, the employers’ Industrial Association ordered strikebreakers to move cargo-laden trucks and railroad cars from the docks to some of the warehouses. One thousand police armed with tear gas, specially-made vomiting gas, revolvers and riot shotguns protected the strikebreakers. Workers responded by organizing about 2,000 pickets to stop the trucks.
July 1934: Police use tear gas as strikers battle police on the Embarcadero.  (Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library)July 1934: Police use tear gas as strikers battle police on the Embarcadero. (Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library)
In the morning hours mounted police charged the pickets and began indiscriminately clubbing people in the crowds and firing tear gas. Workers fought with stones, bricks and railroad spikes and set up barricades, but were dispersed after one-and-a-half hours of street fighting. Then in the afternoon, 5,000 workers gathered and attempted to stop the railway line. This time police responded with gun fire, and pickets were again driven back after a bloody battle. [13]
Two strikers shot by police. Charles Olson on left survived, Howard Sperry, on the right, died.Two strikers shot by police. Charles Olson on left survived, Howard Sperry, on the right, died.
Near the corner of Steuart and Mission Streets, a plain clothes policeman with a riot gun got out of a radio car and began shooting toward the crowd. Three men were hit as they tried to evade the danger. Charles Olson eventually recovered, but Howard Sperry and Nick Bordoise died on the spot. In all, over 100 people were hospitalized. [16]
The funeral march for Howard S. Sperry and Nicholas Bordoise on July 9 was a powerful expression of grief and outrage. As many as 40,000 people marched in respectful silence from the Ferry Building to Valencia Street, a distance of over two miles. Eight abreast, the working men walked slowly, hats off, to Beethoven’s “Funeral March.” They were joined by women and children and the families of the slain.
The killings, and the solemn dignity of the longshoremen’s mourning, created a wave of sympathy for the strikers. It was this, more than anything, that moved the working people of San Francisco to support a general strike.
Silent funeral march of 40,000 for slain workers Howard Sperry and Nick Bordoise. Silent funeral march of 40,000 for slain workers Howard Sperry and Nick Bordoise.
Writer Tillie Olsen expressed the feeling in an article appearing in the September-October 1934 edition of Partisan Review. “'I saw the people, I saw the look on their faces,” she wrote. “And it is the look that will be there the days of the revolution. I saw the fists clenched till the knuckles were white, and people standing, staring, saying nothing, letting it clamp into their hearts, hurt them so the scar would be there forever—a swelling that would never let them lull.” [14]

The general strike

After the police brutality of Bloody Thursday, the Joint Marine Strike Committee called for a general strike and scores of Bay Area union members voted their support against the wishes of the AFL leadership. At a mass meeting July 12, “Teamsters sang, ‘We’ll hang [Teamsters President] Michael Casey from a sour apple tree,’ and shouted him down when he argued passionately against a strike.” [15]
Sympathy for the strikers was not limited to San Francisco or the West Coast alone. In New York City there was a call for a mass meeting in support of the San Francisco strikers. In Los Angeles every union in the city came out in support of the maritime workers and assessed their members 25 cents each to assist the strikers. The proprietor of a lunch counter declared, “Any of my help don’t walk out, I’ll kick their behinds out the door. That’s where I stand.” [16]
The labor officials, however, did not share this popular feeling.
On July 6, Labor Council President Vandeleur appointed a Strike Strategy Committee of seven—all right-wing bureaucrats headed by himself. The committee excluded all of the striking maritime unions in an attempt to wrest control of the movement from the rank-and-file-dominated ILA. As a maneuver to provide a democratic cover for its hidden agenda, it also formed a General Strike Committee of 50 that included Bridges, but which had no ultimate decision-making power.
The New York Times recognized the essence of the Strike Strategy Committee, headlining its article the next day, “General Walkout Blocked.” In response, Bridges now openly defended the reactionary AFL heads, saying in the next day’s ILA Strike Bulletin, “The Labor Council is definitely behind the marine strike.”[17]
By agreeing that the longshoremen’s Joint Strike Committee would be excluded from the leadership of the mass strike, Bridges effectively turned its control over to the AFL leadership. Months later, James P. Cannon, the leader and founder of the Trotskyist movement in the United States, noted that the general strike had fallen “into the hands of the reactionary officialdom,” who “transformed it into a weapon against the marine workers and against the ‘Reds,’” and then “deliberately broke the general strike and pulled the marine strike down with it.” [18]
Nonetheless, the labor bureaucrats could not hold back the general strike, resisting it “until the momentum of events threatened to overwhelm them.” [19]
National Guard tanks on the waterfront  (Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library)National Guard tanks on the waterfront (Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library)
The San Francisco Labor Council voted on July 14 to “support” the call for a general strike. From July 16 to July 20, the city was shut down as 130,000 workers—including teamster drivers, streetcar men, construction workers and restaurant employees—walked off the job. Workers virtually controlled the city for two days. Many small businesses closed down in support. The nearby cities of Oakland and Berkeley were also at a standstill.
Meanwhile, 4,500 heavily armed National Guard troops were deployed throughout the city. Big business, the newspapers and government officials condemned the longshoremen as dangerous radicals and advocates of violence. National Recovery Administration (NRA) chief, General Hugh Johnson, declared the strike “a bloody insurrection” and called on “responsible” labor organizations to “run these subversive influences out from its ranks like rats.” [20]
National Guard machine gun nest (Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library)National Guard machine gun nest (Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library)
A group of publishers led by William Randolph Hearst laid plans to help break the strike. In unison, the newspapers fulminated against the general strike as a “revolution against constituted authority.” Hearst cabled a story from London “about the crushing of the 1926 general strike in England.” [21]
The Hearst propaganda machine failed to convince the workers. According to author Bruce Nelson, “the growing trend in the ranks was to view red-baiting as another in the arsenal of weapons that the employer used to divide and conquer the workers.” [22]
July 15, 1934: General Strike Headline, The San Francisco News Call BulletinJuly 15, 1934: General Strike Headline, The San Francisco News Call Bulletin
Supported by the National Guard, the Industrial Association and city hall mobilized right-wing thugs and police dressed as workers. Dozens of armed gangs raided the headquarters of Communist, IWW and relief organizations, destroying furniture, office equipment and literature, and beating up workers. Three hundred workers were jailed. [23]
The most effective weapon against the city’s workers proved to be the AFL-dominated Strike Strategy Committee, which was working behind the scenes to shut the strike down. On July 18 it voted to end the general strike, calling for all the demands to be submitted to federal arbitration.
The next day the Teamsters, after having been threatened by the city government with mass strike-breaking and firings, voted to return to work, further isolating the longshoremen. On July 31, longshoremen ended their strike, submitting the hiring hall demand to arbitration and returning to work without any of the demands of the seamen and other unions having been met.

Aftermath of the strike

In arbitration, the longshoremen won some of their main demands, gaining union recognition and a coast-wide agreement, a 12-percent wage increase from 85 to 95 cents per hour and overtime at $1.45. The workers also acquired a six-hour day at 30 hours per week, with job security and a regular, equal share of the work. The Blue Book company union and the shape-up were abolished.
The National Labor Board federal arbitration committee granted the employers the right to continue work speed-up and mechanization to increase profits and compensate for the wage increase. On the key issue of hiring, longshoremen did not win their demand for a strictly union-controlled hiring hall and a closed shop. The hall was to be controlled by a Labor Relations Committee composed of both sides.
However, the settlement ruled that the dispatcher would be an ILA union member, and hiring would generally be determined by a list of registered longshoremen who had been regularly working for at least one year of the last three before the strike began. Union members had preference for hiring over non-union members. Strikebreakers were to be laid off.
Ultimately, the Roosevelt administration concluded it was better to give longshoremen substantial concessions than risk another confrontation at vital West Coast ports.
Yet the subordination of the general strike to the leadership of the AFL, which was supported by Bridges and the local ILA leadership, limited the strike’s effectiveness. Seamen and other unions in the Joint Strike Committee won little besides union recognition. And the strike left intact the power of the ship owners and West Coast business interests.
Later, in 1937, the dockworkers formally seceded from the AFL and joined the newly formed CIO, taking the name International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU). In 1950, during the Red Scare, the CIO executive board expelled the entire ILWU from the labor federation, accusing its leadership, particularly Bridges, of being communist. Bridges always denied he was a Communist Party member, although recent archival research in Russia appears to prove that he was.
Like the Toledo Auto-Lite strike and the Minneapolis truck drivers strike, the West Coast longshoremen’s strike was a crucial experience for the working class. These militant struggles provided an impetus for the formation of the mass industrial unions. All three strikes represented a rebellion by workers, under socialist or radical leadership, against the craft union dominated AFL.
Yet ultimately the mass struggles of 1934 and after—which often took on insurrectionary dimensions—were defused by the trade union bureaucracy, the new CIO leadership included, and delivered politically to the Democratic Party.
As in the 1930s, workers today face the necessity of building new organizations. The existing trade unions are integrated into the structure of corporate management and the state, and work to lower the living standards of the working class in the name of competitiveness. Over the past several decades they have worked to hand back all the gains won by workers since the 1930s.
Workers must, and will, fight back, just as they did in 1934. The central lesson of the struggles of the 1930s is the necessity to articulate the independent political interests of the working class. To do so requires the building of an international mass socialist party with deep roots in the working class.
Notes:
1. Joshua Freeman et al., Who Built America?: Working People and the Nation’s Economy, Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 2, ed. Stephen Brier (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 258-261.
2. Howard Kimeldorf, Reds or Rackets?: The Making of Radical and Conservative Unions on the Waterfront (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 35-36
3. David F. Selvin, A Terrible Anger: The 1934 Waterfront and General Strikes in San Francisco (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996).
4. Bruce Nelson, Workers on the Waterfront: Seamen, Longshoremen, and Unionism in the 1930s (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), p. 61-62.
5. Huntington, Emily H. Unemployment Relief and the Unemployed in San Francisco Bay Region 1929-1934, Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics, (Berkeley, CA: UC Press, 1939), p. 6.
6. “Longshore Labor Conditions and Port Decasualization in the United States,” Monthly Labor Review, December, 1933, quoted in Samuel Yellen, American Labor Struggles (New York: Monad Press, 1974), p. 328.
7. Jeremy Brecher, Strike (San Francisco: Straight Arrow Books, 1972), pp. 150-151.
8. Samuel Yellen, American Labor Struggles (New York: Monad Press, 1974), p. 333.
9. Paul Eliel, The Waterfront and General Strikes San Francisco, 1934: A Brief History. (San Francisco: Hooper Printing Company, 1934), p. 87.
10. S.F. Examiner, June 17, 1934, quoted in Eliel, p. 24.
11. S.F. Examiner, June 17, 1934, quoted in Eliel, pp. 70, 74.
12. Kevin Starr, Endangered Dreams, The Great Depression in California (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 101.
13. Brecher, p. 153.
14. Tillie Olson, Partisan Review, October 1934.
15. Bernstein, Turbulent Years, p. 280, quoted in Brecher, p. 154.
16. Mike Quin, The Big Strike (Olema, California: Olema Publishing Company, 1949), p. 118.
17. Selvin, p. 156.
18. James P. Cannon, “The Strike Wave and the Left Wing,” New International, Vol.1, No.3 September-October 1934, pp. 67-68.
19. Nelson, p. 149.
20. Sidney Lens, The Labor Wars: From the Molly Maguires to the Sitdowns (New York: Doubleday Anchor Press, 1973), p. 300.
21. Yellen, p. 347.
22. Nelson, pp. 145-146.
23. Art Preis, Labor’s Giant Step (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1972), 32.