The Political Dimension of Labor-Management Relations

National Trends and State Level Developments in Massachusetts (Volume 1)

Phillip Saunders

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429786020
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

First published in 1986. This study examines both labor's and management's political activities in the state of Massachusetts. The book, while historical in character, provides an interpretation of change, and identifies, describes and interprets temporal sequences. The primary aim of this study is to trace the evolution of public policy in the United States in the broad area of labor-management relations. The attempts of organized labor and management groups to influence public policy through the political process are examined, with a more detailed examination of labor and management political struggles in Massachusetts. This title will be of interest to students of political and labor history.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Speaking in 1955, George Meany, soon to become the first president of the merged AFL-CIO labor federation, stated “The scene of the battle is no longer the company plant or the picket line. It has moved into the legislative halls of Congress and the state legislatures.” [5,p.9]

Some three years later, Archie D. Gray, a senior vice president of the Gulf Oil Corporation, stated:

If we are to survive, labor’s political power must now be opposed by a matching force, and there is no place in the United States where such a force can be generated except among the corporations that make up American business. [6,p.41]

And in the following year, John Marsh, an insightful foreign observer, commented on the trend of American labor and management to get “further into the field of political action”, and stated “the processes of industrial and social change are likely to be so volatile that political involvement on both sides of industry would seem to be irrevocable.” [4,p.119]

Reading such comments, and accepting them at face value, one would be tempted to conclude that the political dimension of labor-management relations might be expanding. That is, during the late 1950’s many people seemed to be arguing that many of the traditional issues of labor-management relations were becoming more and more involved with the political process and the institutions of government in a society that, for the past twenty years at least, had relied primarily on the private institutions of collective bargaining to resolve the inevitable differences that arise between workers and managers in an industrial society.

A casual reading of our nation’s history indicates that we have always had both a private and a public or political dimension to our labor-management problems. Furthermore, the relative importance of each of these dimensions has tended to shift and change over time. When this thesis was originally conceived in late 1959, the writer was intrigued by the questions “Is the political dimension of labor management relations in the United States expanding?”, “If so, what might be some of the implications of this movement?”, and finally, “Is there any evidence that any of these implications are materializing at this time?”

Beginning with these questions, the writer made an extensive survey of the published literature to get a feel for the development of labor-management political struggles and their influence on government or public policy. One impression which seemed to stand out from this survey, was the fact that most previous writings in the general area of the political dimension of labor-management relations tended to emphasize only organized labor’s political activities. This literature also seemed to be concerned primarily with Presidential politics and with the national labor federations and their official pronouncements, with a strong focus on whether there would, could, or should be a labor party in the United States.

In this light, it was felt that a study emphasizing both labor’s and management’s political activities might be useful, and an attempt was made to go beyond official pronouncements and gather data on what was and is actually being done to influence public policy by organized labor and management groups. Since there was a relative dearth of reliable evidence at the national level, it was also decided to push the analysis further by examining in some detail the labor-management political struggles within a particular state.

In terms of the state selected for study, sheer geographical propinquity indicated that the state of Massachusetts was the most appropriate—particularly since this state would still be a good choice on other grounds as it contains many elements characteristic of the developments on the national scene, and it also contains enough unique features to make it worth studying in itself.

In essence the burden of this thesis is largely historical in character, and the central problem of history is the study and interpretation of change. There are essentially two kinds of contributions that a historical study can make to the clearer understanding of human behavior. One is descriptive. The second and more valuable contribution, however, involves not only identifying and describing temporal sequences; it also involves explaining them. The book of interpretation is crucial. In the words of the Social Science Research Council, “historians, whether they wish it or not, furnish the materials to guide or at least to justify policies, opinions and predictions.” [7,p.86]

As a modest attempt at these ambitious goals, this thesis will attempt to briefly trace the evolution of public policy in the United States in the broad area of labor-management relations. Then the attempts of organized labor and management groups to influence public policy through the political process will be examined at the national level in an attempt to answer some of the key questions mentioned above and posed more formally later in this chapter. Finally, an attempt will be made to further examine these tentative answers by a more detailed examination of labor and management political struggles in Massachusetts.

Before pushing on, however, a few basic assumptions and the tentative avenues of investigation initially considered in this thesis should be stated more explicitly. The basic assumptions concerning the nature of labor-management relations and the nature of the political process are drawn largely from two sources: (1) an article by Clark Kerr and Abraham Siegel, “The Structuring of the Labor Force in Industrial Society: New Dimensions and New Questions” [1]; and (2) David B. Truman’s book, The Governmental Process [8].

It appears that every industrializing society generates workers and employers (or managers). Thus, labor-management relations can be viewed in terms of a contest between workers and their organizations and employers and their organizations for the authority to establish the rules needed to “structure” the labor force in our industrial society.¹ This struggle can be viewed as having two dimensions: (1) a private dimension; and (2) a political or public dimension. The boundary line can be arbitrarily drawn in such a way that we nay say that we enter the political dimension of labor-management relations when either party makes any recourse to any of the institutions of government as an aid in the rule making process or when the government itself intervenes in the rule making process. Within each dimension, each party may seek to create a “monistic” system and try to establish unilateral rule-making authority. In general terms, however, a primarily “dualistic” system has developed in the private dimension of American labor-management relations; and a “pluralistic” system has developed in the political or public dimension.¹ This pluralistic political system is a result of the fact that on many issues no single interest group in the United States has a sufficient majority to completely control the governmental mechanism of the “state.” As a result, alliances of differing degrees of formality are formed among various interest groups in an attempt to get the power of the state or the government in support of their position on certain issues. In this way, public political action can be viewed as either a supplement to or a substitute for private economic action in labor-management relations.

This conception of the political process is taken largely from Truman who has stated:

The total pattern of government over a period of time thus presents a protean complex of criss-crossing relationships that change in strength and direction with alterations in the power and standing of interests, organized and unorganized. [8,p.508]

A complete model of this conception of the political process becomes even more complex, since the element of multiple or overlapping membership in interest groups and the element of unorganized interests or potential interest groups must also be considered. Truman has emphasized:

… It is only as the effects of overlapping memberships and the functions of unorganized interests and potential groups are included in the equation that it is accurate to speak of governmental activity as the product or resultant of interest group activity. [8,p.505]

The fundamental role of government as a regulator of economic and class interest has been explicitly pointed out in this country at least since James Madison’s Federalist Paper Number X. The way and the extent to which government has performed this role, however, have not always been uniform or even consistent in the area of labor management relations. This in turn has resulted in various attempts by labor and management to alter the performance of government in its role of mediator between labor and management interest. Indeed, as pointed out earlier, many persons now believe that the political dimension of labor-management relations has been expanding recently. If so, does this have any implications for the basic structure of our country’s industrial relations system?

To some, an expanded political dimension of labor-management relations may mean revived hope or fear, as the case may be, of the possibility of a labor party in this country. If not a labor party, increased political activity on the part of American unions has been seen by some writers as one means of restoring more vitality, participation, and internal democracy to the American labor movement. Others have seen it as an attempt by labor bosses to extend and consolidate their dominance over union membership.

In terms of the structure of present labor and management organizations, the possibility of an expanded political dimension of labor-management relations has some interesting implications. Presently, strong national unions, organized along industry or product-market lines, constitute the centers of power within the American labor movement. Local, state, and national federations of unions organized on a geographic basis play a relatively minor role. Yet the political process of this country operates on the geographical basis of ward, precinct, legislative district, and state-wide organization. Even the President and Vice President of the United States, the only truly nationwide offices in this country, are placed in office by an electoral college that allocates so many electoral votes to each state. Would an expanding political dimension of labor-management relations result in a relative shift of power toward geographical federations within the labor movement as organized labor tried to become more effective in geographical districts which cut across the economic lines that lie at the heart of the private collective bargaining process? The same question might be asked of management organization. Would an expanding political dimension of labor-management relations result in individual corporations turning more political functions over to geographically oriented employer associations?

One might also speculate as to the appropriateness of the political process as a forum for resolving labor-management differences. Legislation and public policy by its very nature tends to be general and inclusive in its application, and therefore does not lend itself well to subtle adjustments or accommodation to special situations or particular circumstances. Even more basically, one feature of the private collective bargaining process is the necessity for agreement and the compulsion to compromise on some of the basic issues of labor-management relations. One party may strongly desire a certain course of action, but the necessity to reach agreement and sign a contract or a “truce” for a certain period of time compels each side to evaluate its desires in terms of the penalties and costs of not reaching an agreement. And in the private collective bargaining dimension of labor-management relations, the penalties of not agreeing can be very real and immediate. In the political process, however, one could argue that the compulsion to agree or work out a “liveable” arrangement on particular issues is not so strong. If one party seeks a particular law or ruling and fails to get it, it can always try again; and, in most cases, there is no acute penalty in the interim. The polemics of political debate can encourage both sides to adopt adamant and polarized positions, take an all-or-nothing-at-all approach, and hope for the best. If nothing is accomplished the tendency is to shore up the extremes even further and keep trying. Soon dominance rather than agreement becomes the goal, and increasing hostility is thus injected into the “climate” of labor-management relations.

If there is any substance to such a hypothesis, does it help to explain the recent “hardening of attitudes” witnessed by many observers of the current labor-management scene?

Beginning with speculations such as these, this thesis will attempt to determine if the political dimension of labor-management relations is expanding at the present time. And, if so, if there is any evidence that any of the possible implications mentioned above are materializing, i.e., does contemporary labor political activity seem destined to lead to a labor party? Does it seem to have any influence on internal union democracy? Do geographical labor or management organizations appear to be increasing in influence relative to the traditional center of power within labor and management organizations? Can the recent “hardening of attitudes” noticed in the collective bargaining process be explained at least in part by the increased political participation of labor and management groups in the polarized atmosphere of the political process?

Part I of this thesis will attempt to answer these questions in terms of the published data which are available on the national political scene. Aside from books and journal articles, primary reliance will be placed on the data published annually by Congressional Quarterly Almanac and a more detailed investigation of political spending activities made by the Senate Privileges and Elections Subcommittee in 1956, the results of which were summarized and analyzed in Alexander Heard’s book, The Cost of Democracy. [3]

Parts II and III of the thesis will then attempt to examine these answers in terms of the development of the political dimension of labor—management relations in the state of Massachusetts. Part II serves as an introduction to the contemporary political scene in the Bay State and traces the development of la...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• List of Tables
• Chapter I. Introduction
• Part I. Government, Organized Labor, and Management in the United States: Traditional Patterns and Changing Tendencies in the Public Policy Aspects of the Industrial Rule Making Process
• II. Government and Public Policy in the Industrial Rule Making Process
• III. Historical Experiments in Political Activity: Organized Labor
• IV. Historical Experiments in Political Activity: American Management
• V. A Detailed Look at the Post World War II Labor-Management Political Scene
• VI. Summary and Conclusions on the National Scene
• Part II. The Current Setting and Historical Background of Labor-Management Political Struggles in Massachusetts
• VII. An Introduction to the Dynamics and Structure of Massachusetts Government
• VIII. A Closer Look at the Major Groups Attempting to Influence Contemporary Labor Legislation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
• IX. Early (Pre 1930) Massachusetts Labor Legislation