HARRY BRIDGES : LABOR RADICAL, LABOR LEGEND
By Robert W. Cherry
Illinois University Press.
478 pages. £49. ISBN 978-0-252-04474-8
Reviewed by Jim Burns
We know little about American unions and what perceptions we do have
may have been influenced by films like
On the Waterfront, with
its scenes of gangster-controlled activities among dockworkers, or
the films, television programmes, and books about the notorious
Jimmy Hoffa and his role in the corruption-riddled International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. But we hear little or nothing about the
unions and their officials who work hard and honestly to improve the
pay and conditions of their members. I doubt that the name of Harry
Bridges is now known to many people on this side of the Atlantic,
and yet, in his day, he attracted attention when employers and
government in America came together in a campaign to vilify him with
accusations of collusion with the Communist Party. This extended to
several attempts to deport him because he hadn’t been born in the
United States.
Bridges was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1901. He left school in
1915, was employed as a clerk for a couple of years, and in 1917
went to sea, mostly working on small ships around the coasts of
Australia and Tasmania. He moved on to larger vessels and in 1920
arrived in San Francisco, where he tried to find work as a
longshoreman (a docker in British terminology). The waterfront
wasn’t then union-organised and working conditions were hard and
often dangerous. Particularly disliked was the daily “shape-up”, the
process where men would assemble each morning to be chosen for work
by the gang-masters. It was a system open to abuse. Similar
arrangements applied in Britain, and I can recall my father telling
me how, after leaving the Royal Navy in 1925 following twelve years
service, he sometimes looked for work in the local docks and
experienced what the “shape-up” was like. Jobs went to those who
were friends of the gang-boss or would buy him drinks in the
dockside pubs.
Bridges at some point had joined the Industrial Workers of the World
(IWW), the radical labour union with a policy of syndicalism at its
centre. It’s interesting to note that the one country outside the
USA which had a sizeable and active IWW membership was Australia.
Robert W. Cherry thinks that, despite changing circumstances,
Bridges always retained a deep-seated belief in basic IWW principles
in terms of believing that the rank-and-file membership of a union
had the last word in any agreement that was arrived at: “What really
angered employers about Bridges (was) his refusal to cut a closed
door deal with them and his insistence that the rank and file ratify
everything The union
members’ loyalty to Bridges came out of that, too”.
There may also have been an IWW influence at work when he was asked
to comment on a book about him written by an academic. He was of the
opinion that college professors were not qualified to write about
labour history. You needed to be a “working stiff” to do that. And
he added that they were unable to understand that “there’s no two
sides. There’s only one side, our side. The boss is always wrong.
You can’t sell a college professor on that”. I’m put in mind of the
opening lines of the Preamble
of the Industrial Workers of the World : “The working class and
the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace as
long as hunger and want are found among millions of working people
and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good
things of life”. In Howard Kimeldorf’s
Reds or
Rackets? : The Making of Radical and Conservative Unions on the
Waterfront (University of California Press, 1988),
there’s a reference to Bridges being asked to summarise his
views, and replying: “We take the view that we as workers have
nothing in common with the employers”. Which is, as we can see, pure
IWW thinking.
Bridges worked on the San Francisco waterfront for several years,
experiencing the long working hours, the frequent lay-offs, the
injustices of the “shape-up” system, and the injuries which were
often not reported because to do so could lead to not being employed
again. He joined the Riggers & Stevedores Union which struggled to
establish a footing against the employer-dominated “Blue Book”
union, and was blacklisted after taking part in a Labour Day parade
in 1924. He seems to have left the IWW by then, though the reason
isn’t known. It could have been because the IWW had lost much of its
impact after the mass trial of its main organisers in 1919 when many
of them were sent to prison. The organisation split in the 1920s
over the question of whether or not to accept amnesty or hold out
for full pardons. Some IWW members had been deported, others joined
the American Communist Party which was starting to grow in size and
influence. Was Bridges one of them? The question of his relationship
to the Communist Part was to become a key factor later when he
became prominent as a militant trade unionist. He always denied ever
being a member, but there’s no doubt that he was often close to the
Party in his economic and political attitudes and ideas.
The Thirties were tough times as the Depression created mass
unemployment. Bridges was married and his wife had a son from
previous relationships and would soon give birth to a daughter. She
was also an alcoholic. There were tensions in his family life
resulting from her drinking and the problems arising from a lack of
money, Bridges was also becoming more involved with union
activities. He had joined the International Longshoremen’s
Association-Pacific Coast District (ILA-PCD) which allegedly had
some communist links, though not to the point where the Party
dominated it. A mimeographed
publication, the
Waterfront Worker, had its origins within the Marine Workers
Industrial Union (MWIU), a communist-controlled organisation, and
was then handed over to the ILA,
but it had a broad policy when it came to what it published.
Bridges did some of the writing for it, as did other union
activists. With that in mind I was reminded of an interview with the
poet Kenneth Rexroth, a particular favourite of mine but someone, I
suspect, who could tell a good story. Reminiscing about the 1930s
and his involvement with the labour movement in San Francisco, he
remarked, “But hell, I mean, I wrote the
Waterfront Worker……all of
the goddamn thing week after week after week”. (The
San Francisco Poets, edited by David Meltzer, Ballantine Books,
1971).I wonder if Bridges ever read what Rexroth said?
The ILA formulated a series of demands to be presented to the
employers. They included recognition of the union as bargaining
agent for the union with all ports between the Canadian and Mexican
borders covered by the same contractual arrangements relating to pay
and conditions. There was also the key question of establishing a
union-administered hiring hall in order to eliminate the hated
“shape-up” and its problems. Because of the detailed and complex
nature of union activity in San Francisco around this time I’m
having to summarise very quickly. Not just longshoremen were
involved, and seamen also stopped work. The situation soon developed
into what became known as the 1934 General Strike in the city, with
events taking a tragic turn on the Fifth of July. Two strikers were
killed by the police and hundreds injured. There seems little doubt
that the police were acting in collusion with the employers in an
attempt to intimidate strikers and break the unions.
Bridges had risen to prominence as a leading light in the ILA and,
not long after, he and others¸ disillusioned by the lukewarm support
from the East Coast-based headquarters of the ILA, decided to form a
new union. It was established as the International Longshoremen’s
and Warehousemen’s Association (ILWA) (now the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union) with Bridges at its head. Again, I’m
out of necessity summarising events. The ILWA became part of the
Congress of Industrial Organisations, the committee covering the new
industrial unionism in coal, steel, rubber, and other
labour-intensive industries.
With all the attention focused on Bridges both at home and abroad it
was, perhaps, inevitable that the government and the employers would
try to find ways to curtail, or even completely put a halt to his
influence and activities. He had managed to obtain American
citizenship in 1945, but if it could be proved that he had made a
false declaration about never being a member of the Communist Party
when applying, he could be deported. The FBI had an extensive file
on him, but could never actually come up with hard evidence of Party
membership despite bugging and burgling his office. They produced
witnesses, including one-time communists such as Benjamin Gitlow and
Jay Lovestone, who claimed to have seen him at Party meetings and
others who referred to his friendships with Party officials. They
even got his ex-wife to testify that he had been a Party member, but
no-one could provide anything other than hearsay and gossip to back
up their claims. Bridges never denied that he had mixed with
communists and listened to their suggestions about union matters.
Nor did he attempt to disguise his views about certain political
matters where he might have travelled along the same road as the
communists. He additionally
referred to himself as a Marxist, though that in itself didn’t make
him a communist. There
were three deportation hearings, all of which failed, before the
authorities called it a day.
It’s interesting to look at the kind of support Bridges got,
especially around the time of his second deportation hearing in
1940. Luminaries of the cultural Left like Lillian Hellmann,
Clifford Odets, Stella Adler, and novelist and later blacklisted
screenwriter Dalton Trumbo signed petitions, wrote pamphlets, and
made speeches protesting against the attempts to find him guilty.
The Almanac Singers, a group firmly in the communist camp and
including Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger, wrote “A Song for Bridges”
with lines describing him as “An honest union leader who the bosses
tried to frame”. Some years ago it was one of the songs on a CD,
Talking Union (Naxos
8.120567), which provided a handy guide to the changes in the Party
line with regard to American involvement in the Second World War and
support or otherwise for President Roosevelt. Bridges had aligned
himself with the Party in being against Roosevelt and his
non-isolationist policies, something which differentiated him from
the mass of union members who favoured the President.
With regard to Bridges and the Communist Party, there is an
interesting passage in Joseph Starobin’s
American Communism in Crisis,
1943-1957 (University of California Press, 1975) where he says
that Bridges was “close to anarcho-syndicalism but never a
Communist”. He also comments that “he had been moulded in the IWW
long before his contact with the Communists”. Starobin was foreign
editor of the Daily Worker from 1945 to 1954 and as such would
almost certainly have known about Bridges’ links to the Party and
what they amounted to from the point of view of commitment. From
comments by other communists who knew him I would guess that
Bridges’ first loyalty was to his union and its members. He was too
idiosyncratic in his views to follow a close party line. It might
also be worth noting that Dorothy Healey, in her memoir,
Dorothy Healey Remembers: A
life in the American Communist Party (Oxford University Press,
1990) mentions Bridges but only says that he “was very close to the
Communist Party”. As a leading light of the Party in California she
would surely have known had Bridges been a member.
The Post-War period and indeed up to his retirement in 1977 found
Bridges firmly in control of the ILWU, Despite his comments about
the essential differences between employers and workers he often
proved to be ready to negotiate and he supported arbitration as a
means of arriving at a satisfactory settlement. He quickly
recognised that containerisation would bring major changes to the
way in which longshoremen would work, and that their numbers would
be reduced. He co-operated with management to ensure that jobs would
be protected and work shared out, also that workers made redundant
or pushed into retirement would be entitled to decent settlements
and pensions. He saw the union as being there to look after the
interests of its members and did his best to fulfil his role as
their spokesman.
I’m conscious of the fact that I’ve only skimmed the surface of this
book. It’s massively detailed about wage negotiations, factional
fights within the union, personalities on both sides of the table
when Bridges and his team met employers, and much more. It also
throws light on Bridges the man. He was married three times. He
divorced his first wife and his second wife left him because he
spent so much time with union matters that she rarely saw him. His
third marriage lasted until his death in 1990. In his younger days
he had been an enthusiastic jazz fan. San Francisco in the 1940s was
a noted centre for what was known as traditional jazz, and I would
guess it was what he liked as opposed to the modern sounds coming
out of Los Angeles. Bridges enjoyed visiting the races and betting
on the horses. I did wonder what he read other than material
relating to union matters, though he does seem to have taken a wide
interest in current affairs generally.
There were some problems
with alcohol as he got older. As
Robert Cherry points out, hard drinking was often an inevitable
condition of life as a union man. Anyone who has taken part in union
affairs, even at their most basic level, will know that they’re
often centred on pubs.
At the start of this review I referred to Jimmy Hoffa and the
question of corruption affecting unions. Cherney quotes A.H. Raskin,
“longtime and highly respected labour reporter”, as saying of
Bridges: “Union leaders who abhorred his political philosophy”
nonetheless acknowledged “the unrelenting vigil he maintained to bar
any spillover in the West Coast piers of the gangsterism that is
still rife in Atlantic and Gulf ports”. I can’t help wondering if
the employers who were so determined to see Bridges deported might
not have been happier dealing with gangster-controlled unions? They
would have been able to cut deals with them and expect to have the
workers kept under control. There is the interesting fact that,
despite not approving of “some of the things that Jimmy does”,
Bridges through his union supported Hoffa when he was imprisoned for
alleged jury tampering. I think he saw Hoffa as a union man, like
himself, who was being pursued by the authorities, for one reason or
another, in a bid to limit the power of the union. And he hated the
chief prosecutor, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who Bridges said
was a “danger to labour, to civil rights and civil liberties, and
maybe even to a peaceful world”.
Harry Bridges wasn’t a saint and it could be said that his political
views were sometimes naïve. A
trip to the Soviet Union produced the comment, “The USSR is not a
utopia. Far from it”, but “The Soviet people have it made and they
know it”. As a union man, however, he was highly effective, which is
what annoyed employers and many politicians. He had opponents within
the ILWU. Some of them thought he’d been head of the union for too
long, others claimed he should be fighting harder for increased
benefits for union members. No-one suggested that he personally
benefited a great deal from his position. He lived quite modestly
and his salary was never more than that of the earnings of the
highest paid longshoreman.
Harry Bridges : Labor Radical, Labor Legend
is a book dense with
detail, so much so that it might deter some readers from following
it through the twists and turns of negotiations, strikes,
inter-union disputes, and similar matters. On the other hand, it’s a
mine of information about how unions, and in particular the ILWU,
developed in the United States in the 1930s and 1940s. There are
almost one hundred pages of notes and a good bibliography.
|