Press Coverage of the 1948 ILWU Strike Vote

ROGER; There was a public audience, certainly a newspaper audience. There was an audience for some really lousy rags around town, like the Hearst papers, all willing to pick up any allegations against Bridges and the union. Incidentally, I can tell you any longshoremen seen reading a Hearst paper, The Examiner or Call-Bulletin, would have been taunted pretty badly. "Why do you carry that rag on you for?"

To this day I find it hard to buy the Examiner, though it's often better than the Chronicle. I still remember the old Hearst days. I recall an editorial in the union paper, scoffing at people who write for Hearst. It said, most reporters apologize and say: "Well, it's a living." "So is pimping." says the editorial.

Yet, many of us knew the ILWU was facing later troubles. The CIO did not like the union's stand on the Marshall Plan and its support of Wallace and a third party. All these things roiled up about the same time as a Taft-Hartley injunction with an eighty-day cooling-off period. The Waterfront Employers kept up a public uproar, saying, We refuse to negotiate with Communists.

We won't do something illegal to maintain the hiring halls. But the longshoremen vowed they would "hit the bricks" and "tough it out"—as they say on the 'front. There was continuous pressure and threats on the union members to toss out their "Communistic" officers, and to accept the employers' contract offer. Even AFL conservatives advised Bridges to hold fast, and not allow the employers to dictate who should represent union members.

The final step in an eighty-day injunction is for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to hold a secret referendum where the workers are asked if they will accept the employers' last offer. The workers who had been on strike can vote this final offer up or down. If accepted, an agreement is signed; if rejected, the injunction ends and the strike is on again. The union decided the best way to handle this thing is not to vote at all. I have a photocopy of NLRB's Certification Report—dated September 1, 1948. The "final offer" ballot results are:

• Number of eligible employees - 26,965

• Ballots marked "yes" - 0

• Ballots marked "no" - 0

• Ballots challenged - 0

• Total ballots cast - 0

SHEARER; So they just turned in blank ballots on the final offer?

ROGER; I don't remember ever seeing a better example of imaginative strategy and tactics than this one developed by Bridges and the strike committee. Keep in mind the kind of understanding and discipline by an entire membership of men along a thousand miles of Pacific coast. I'd call it a tour de force. The eighty-day injunction was lifted and the strike was on again.

And the employers revived their barrage. They withdrew their offers and publicly restated "...We will not bargain further with a union whose officers failed to sign the non-Communist affidavits." Once again the union leadership put their collective imagination to work. Bridges decided the best answer to the employers would be to put the main issues before the rank and file in a coastwide, secret, ballot referendum. There were two propositions: One—On Accepting the Shipowners' Contract; Two—On signing a non-Communist affidavit.

All locals between the Canadian and the Mexican borders voted. Longshoremen, ship clerks, watchmen and walking bosses voted 96.8 percent "No" on accepting the contract; and 94.39 percent "No" on the anti-Communist affidavit.

Remember the 100 percent "no" vote? Certainly, a significant news story. Bridges made a big point of this major story and the fact that not a newspaper in San Francisco even mentioned that the vote had taken place.

SHEARER; And there was plenty of coverage of the strike.

ROGER; The strike and all the Communist labels were well covered. Nobody mentioned that 100 percent of the men did not vote. I'm saying this merely reinforced what Bridges always believed, namely that the press was a whore, bought by the highest bidder. From the 1934 strike to 1948, Harry had taken every conceivable rap from the press, which most always sided with the shipowners. I've always disagreed with the concept that the press ever sold out to big business. The press was itself big business. You can see why most union leaders saw the press as an enemy.

SHEARER; Yes.

ROGER; After the strike ended, the Waterfront Employers Association said they had never meant to imply that Bridges was a Communist. But they weren't being all that nice. Bridges sued the Employers Association for libel and slander. That's when they backed off. They didn't do it out of any generosity or any mea culpa. Nothing like that. Bridges decided before the end of the strike that he would sue them after they took a full page in the papers.

SHEARER; This is the Employers' Association?

ROGER; One was a picture of Bridges and Molotov, the foreign minister of the Soviet Union, clicking champagne glasses, and implying this is an example of Communists hobnobbing together. The union got hold of the original photos, which showed a group of people at a reception during the United Nations Conference when Molotov was the chief delegate for the Russians.

The union's ad showed what the shipowners concealed, that shipowners as well as union people were there. Another photo at the same occasion showed Molotov shaking hands with a man named Henry Grady, a major shipowner in the West Coast. The union took the same picture and said, "This is true, it happened at a reception, and look who else was there."

SHEARER; And ran the picture in the paper?

ROGER; Big ad, yes. You'd wonder at times how people who should know better can be so stupid, let alone venal. You'd expect, with all the money they have, the employers could have hired people with better sense. Getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar may have broken the back of the whole situation. Eventually, the Waterfront Employers Association folded their tents and later a smarter group took over—the Pacific Maritime Association.

I'm thinking of other events in 1948 where I was involved. The ILWU took the lead in trying to get all the maritime unions in the country to meet here in San Francisco, and to form one big union of maritime workers. It was a great idea that never moved. I've forgotten details, but it was a complex failure, based on some political and ideological trade union differences, plus personality and power-sharing problems. So, I'll skip the rest.

SHEARER; You mentioned that the ILWU had received expressions of support from maritime unions around the world. There's a maritime union on the East Coast, the ILA, and I gather there was no support?

ROGER; No support, as far as I remember. In later years, there were times when the two unions did cooperate, did confer, and even took joint action. There's a lot of past history involved. Remember, the ILWU was formed only about ten years before, after the union split away from the old AFL and became part of the new, energetic CIO. I'd say 1948 was a seminal year. A lot of what happened that year led to historic changes. One of them was CIO dumping the ILWU. That began in 1948 and ended in 1950. Then, there was the maritime strike that stirred many against the union, but was won at the finish gate.

Yet, these events may have fired up the government to revive the "Everlasting Bridges Case" with a federal indictment of Bridges and two colleagues on serious criminal charges, and also for immigration officials to make another crack at trying to deport Bridges.