How Did The American Federation Of Labor View Strikes

Navigating the complex landscape of labor relations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries requires understanding the perspectives of key players, and few were as influential as the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The AFL's stance on strikes was neither uniformly supportive nor unequivocally opposed; instead, it was a pragmatic and strategic calculation rooted in its philosophy of "business unionism." This approach emphasized practical gains for its members through collective bargaining and, when necessary, carefully planned strikes.

The AFL, founded in 1886, quickly became a dominant force in the American labor movement. Unlike more radical organizations that sought fundamental societal change, the AFL focused on achievable goals within the existing capitalist system. Its leader, Samuel Gompers, advocated for "pure and simple unionism," prioritizing wages, hours, and working conditions. This pragmatic approach shaped the AFL's view of strikes, which were seen as a tool—sometimes necessary, sometimes not—to achieve these concrete objectives.

The AFL's Pragmatic Approach to Strikes

Strikes, for the AFL, were not ideological statements but strategic actions. The decision to strike was not taken lightly. It required careful consideration of various factors, including the strength of the union, the economic conditions, and the likelihood of success. The AFL favored negotiation and collective bargaining as the primary means of resolving disputes with employers. Strikes were considered a last resort, to be employed only when all other avenues had been exhausted.

This pragmatic stance was evident in the AFL's structure and organization. The AFL was a federation of autonomous craft unions, each with its own jurisdiction and leadership. This decentralized structure allowed individual unions to make their own decisions about whether or not to strike, based on their specific circumstances. The AFL provided support and coordination, but it did not dictate strike policy to its affiliated unions.

The AFL's cautious approach to strikes reflected a broader concern for the long-term stability and viability of the labor movement. Gompers and other AFL leaders recognized that unsuccessful strikes could weaken unions, alienate public opinion, and invite government intervention. Therefore, they emphasized the importance of careful planning, strong organization, and disciplined execution in any strike action.

The Philosophy Behind the Approach

The AFL's pragmatic approach to strikes was deeply rooted in its philosophy of "business unionism." This philosophy emphasized the importance of practical gains for workers within the existing capitalist system. Gompers believed that unions should focus on improving wages, hours, and working conditions, rather than pursuing radical social or political reforms.

"Business unionism" also emphasized the importance of collective bargaining as the primary means of resolving disputes with employers. Gompers believed that unions should negotiate contracts that protected workers' rights and provided them with a fair share of the profits they helped to create. Strikes were seen as a tool to be used when collective bargaining failed, but they were not the preferred method of resolving disputes.

Another key aspect of the AFL's philosophy was its emphasis on the importance of skilled workers. The AFL primarily represented skilled craft workers, such as carpenters, machinists, and printers. These workers had valuable skills that employers needed, which gave them significant bargaining power. The AFL believed that by organizing these skilled workers, it could improve wages and working conditions for all workers.

AFL's Conditions for Strike Approval

While the AFL did not outright ban strikes, it had stringent criteria for approving and supporting them. These conditions reflected the organization's cautious and pragmatic approach:

1. Exhaustion of Negotiations: Strikes were to be considered only after all attempts at negotiation and mediation had failed. The AFL believed in exhausting all peaceful means of resolving disputes before resorting to strike action.

2. Strong Union Organization: A successful strike required a well-organized and disciplined union. The AFL emphasized the importance of building strong local unions with active members who were committed to the cause.

3. Financial Resources: Strikes could be lengthy and costly. The AFL insisted that unions have sufficient financial resources to support striking members and their families. This often involved building up strike funds through regular dues payments.

4. Public Support: The AFL recognized the importance of public opinion in determining the outcome of a strike. It encouraged unions to engage in public relations efforts to win support for their cause.

5. Strategic Timing: The timing of a strike was crucial. The AFL advised unions to strike when they had the greatest leverage over employers, such as during periods of high demand for their products or services.

Notable Strikes and the AFL's Involvement

The AFL's involvement in strikes varied depending on the specific circumstances of each situation. Some notable examples illustrate the AFL's approach:

• The Homestead Strike (1892): Although the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers was an AFL affiliate, the AFL's support was limited. The strike at Carnegie's Homestead Steel Works was brutally suppressed, highlighting the challenges faced by unions in the face of powerful corporations and government intervention. The AFL's cautious approach was criticized by some who felt it should have provided more robust support.

• The Pullman Strike (1894): The AFL initially hesitated to support the Pullman Strike, led by Eugene V. Debs and the American Railway Union (ARU). However, as the strike escalated and the government intervened on the side of the Pullman Company, the AFL eventually offered limited support. The strike's ultimate failure underscored the limitations of the AFL's approach in dealing with large-scale industrial disputes.

• The Anthracite Coal Strike (1902): This strike, led by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), an AFL affiliate, was more successful. The AFL provided significant financial and organizational support, and President Theodore Roosevelt's intervention eventually led to a settlement that improved wages and working conditions for the miners. This strike demonstrated the potential for successful strike action when unions had strong leadership, public support, and government intervention.

Contrasting Views Within the Labor Movement

The AFL's approach to strikes was not universally embraced within the labor movement. More radical organizations, such as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), advocated for more aggressive and confrontational tactics. The IWW believed in organizing all workers, regardless of skill level, into one big union that would overthrow the capitalist system through revolutionary action.

The IWW criticized the AFL's focus on skilled workers and its willingness to work within the existing system. The IWW believed that strikes should be used as a tool to challenge the power of corporations and the government, rather than simply to improve wages and working conditions.

These contrasting views reflected fundamental differences in philosophy and strategy. The AFL sought to improve the lives of workers within the existing system, while the IWW sought to fundamentally transform that system.

The Impact of the AFL's Policies

The AFL's cautious and pragmatic approach to strikes had a significant impact on the American labor movement. By focusing on achievable goals and avoiding unnecessary confrontations, the AFL helped to build a stable and sustainable labor movement. Its emphasis on collective bargaining and negotiation helped to establish a framework for resolving disputes between employers and employees.

However, the AFL's approach also had its limitations. Its focus on skilled workers and its reluctance to engage in large-scale industrial strikes meant that many workers, particularly unskilled and immigrant workers, were left behind. Its cautious approach sometimes led to missed opportunities to challenge the power of corporations and the government.

Despite these limitations, the AFL played a crucial role in shaping the American labor movement. Its policies and strategies helped to improve the lives of millions of workers and laid the foundation for the modern labor movement.

The Evolution of AFL's Strike Strategy

Over time, the AFL's strike strategy evolved in response to changing economic and political conditions. In the early years, the AFL focused on organizing skilled craft workers and using strikes to improve their wages and working conditions. As the economy became more industrialized, the AFL began to recognize the need to organize unskilled workers and to engage in larger-scale industrial strikes.

The rise of industrial unionism in the 1930s, led by figures like John L. Lewis and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), challenged the AFL's dominance and forced it to adapt. The CIO embraced a more aggressive approach to organizing and strike action, which led to significant gains for industrial workers.

In response, the AFL began to adopt some of the CIO's tactics, such as the sit-down strike. The AFL also began to merge with the CIO, culminating in the creation of the AFL-CIO in 1955. This merger marked a significant turning point in the history of the American labor movement.

Modern Relevance

The AFL-CIO continues to be a major force in American politics and labor relations. While the nature of work and the economy have changed dramatically since the late 19th century, the AFL-CIO's basic principles remain relevant. The organization continues to advocate for workers' rights, to promote collective bargaining, and to use strikes as a tool of last resort.

The AFL-CIO's approach to strikes today is still characterized by pragmatism and strategic calculation. The organization recognizes the importance of careful planning, strong organization, and public support in any strike action. It also recognizes the need to adapt to changing economic and political conditions.

The lessons learned from the AFL's experience with strikes continue to inform the strategies and tactics of the modern labor movement. The importance of careful planning, strong organization, and public support remains as relevant today as it was in the late 19th century.

Expert Advice: Lessons from the AFL's Strike Strategies

Drawing from the AFL's historical perspective on strikes, here are some pieces of expert advice that remain relevant for modern labor movements:

1. Strategic Planning is Paramount: Never enter a strike without a meticulously crafted plan. This includes assessing the union's strength, the employer's vulnerability, and the potential for public support. A poorly planned strike can be more damaging than beneficial.

2. Financial Stability is Crucial: Ensure that the union has sufficient financial resources to support its members during a strike. This involves building a robust strike fund and providing assistance to members and their families who may face financial hardship.

3. Public Relations Matter: Engage in proactive public relations to win support for the union's cause. This includes communicating the issues at stake, highlighting the employer's unfair practices, and building alliances with community groups and other stakeholders.

4. Negotiation Should Always Be the First Option: Exhaust all avenues for negotiation and mediation before resorting to strike action. Strikes should be viewed as a last resort, not a first response.

5. Timing is Everything: Choose the right time to strike, when the union has the greatest leverage over the employer. This may involve striking during periods of high demand for the employer's products or services, or when the employer is facing other challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What was the AFL's main goal? A: The AFL's primary goal was to improve wages, hours, and working conditions for its members through collective bargaining and, when necessary, strikes.

Q: Did the AFL support all strikes? A: No, the AFL had strict criteria for approving and supporting strikes, including the exhaustion of negotiations, strong union organization, and sufficient financial resources.

Q: How did the AFL differ from more radical labor organizations? A: The AFL focused on achieving practical gains for workers within the existing capitalist system, while more radical organizations sought fundamental societal change.

Q: What was "business unionism"? A: "Business unionism" was the AFL's philosophy that emphasized the importance of practical gains for workers through collective bargaining and negotiation, rather than radical social or political reforms.

Q: What is the legacy of the AFL's approach to strikes? A: The AFL's cautious and pragmatic approach to strikes helped to build a stable and sustainable labor movement, but it also had limitations in addressing the needs of unskilled and immigrant workers.

Conclusion

The American Federation of Labor's view of strikes was complex and nuanced, reflecting its pragmatic approach to labor relations. Strikes were seen as a tool to be used strategically, not as an end in themselves. The AFL's emphasis on careful planning, strong organization, and public support helped to shape the American labor movement and to improve the lives of millions of workers.

The lessons learned from the AFL's experience with strikes remain relevant for modern labor movements. By understanding the AFL's approach, we can gain valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities facing workers and unions today.

How do you think the AFL's approach to strikes compares to modern labor strategies? Are there aspects of their strategy that are still relevant, or have times changed too much?