Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:56:02.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labor's Role in Government Agencies During World War II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Bruno Stein
Bruno Stein
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During World War II a system of labor participation and representation emerged in a series of national economic planning agencies. This study is primarily concerned with the representation and participation of organized labor in the activities of the National Defense Advisory Commission, the Office of Production Management, and the War Production Board. Some attention is also given to the War Manpower Commission and the Office of Price Administration.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1957 , pp. 389 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 U.S. National Archives, Federal Records of World War II (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950), I, 126–27Google Scholar.

2 U.S. Bureau of the Budget, The United States at War, Historical Reports on War Administration, No. 1 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 22Google ScholarPubMed.

3 U.S. Civilian Production Administration, Bureau of Demobilization, Industry and Labor Advisory Committees in the National Defense Advisory Commission and the Office of Production Management, May 1940 to January 1942, Historical Report on War Administration, War Production Board, Special Study No. 24 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 58Google Scholar.

4 U.S. Civilian Production Administration, Bureau of Demobilization, Minutes of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense, Historical Reports on War Administration, War Production Board, Documentary Publication No. 1 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1946), June 21, 1940Google Scholar.

5 U.S. Civilian Production Administration, Bureau of Demobilization, Labor Policies of the National Defense Advisory Commission and the Office of Production Management, May 1940 to April 1942, Historical Reports on War Administration, War Production Board, Special Study No. 23 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 58Google Scholar.

6 Ibid.

7 NDAC Minutes, Aug. 28, 1940.

8 Ibid. Italics added.

9 The Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act, for instance, does not apply to subcontracts.

10 NDAC Minutes, Oct. 4, 1940.

11 Special Study No. 23, p. 47.

12 Ibid., p. 48.

13 Congress of Industrial Organizations, Daily Proceedings of the Third Constitutional Convention, Atlantic City, New Jersey, Nov. 1942 (Congress of Industrial Organizations, n.p., n.d.), pp. 182–92Google Scholar.

14 Congress of Industrial Organizations, Daily Proceedings of the Fifth Constitutional Convention, Boston, Nov. 1942 (Congress of Industrial Organizations, n.p., n.d.), pp. 9–13Google Scholar.

15 Amidon, Beulah, “Organized Labor and Defense,” Survey Graphic, XXX (Jan. 1941), 7–9Google Scholar.

16 Special Study No. 24, pp. 60–61.

17 Ibid., p. 61. See also Wolf, Herman, Labor Defends America (Washington: American Council on Public Affairs, 1941), passimGoogle Scholar.

18 NDAC Minutes, Sept. 25, 1940.

19 The New York. Times, Jan. 8, 1941.

20 U.S. Civilian Production Administration, Bureau of Demobilization, Minutes of the Council of the Office of Production Management, Historical Reports on War Administration, War Production Board, Documentary Publication No. 2 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), March 17, 1941Google Scholar.

21 Special Study No. 24, pp. 173–74.

22 Ibid., p. 174.

23 OPM Minutes, June 24, 1941.

24 Ibid., July 1, 1941.

25 Special Study No. 24, p. 177.

26 Ibid., p. 185.

27 Ibid., p. 176.

28 Clinton S. Golden, in a personal interview with the author.

29 Special Study No. 24, pp. 188–89.

30 Ibid., pp. 218–29.

31 Ibid., pp. 194–95.

32 U.S. Civilian Production Administration, Bureau of Demobilization, Industrial Mobilization for War, Historical Reports on War Administration, War Production Board, General Study No. 1 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947), pp. 99–100Google ScholarPubMed.

33 Congress of Industrial Organizations, Daily Proceedings of the Fourth Constitutional Convention, Detroit, Nov. 1941 (Congress of Industrial Organizations, n.p., n.d.), pp. 55–57. 170Google Scholar. Murray proposed the establishment in each defense industry of an Industry Council empowered to promulgate and execute policies of national defense. Each Council was to be composed equally of representatives from management and labor and an impartial representative from government. At plant levels there would be Joint Industry Local Councils composed of local union representatives and management to deal with production problems and to expedite the handling of grievances. At the top level, Murray proposed a Board of Review to co-ordinate the work of the Industry Councils and to analyze matters of disagreement among them.

34 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Select Committee Investigating National Defense Migration, Hearings, 77th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1941)Google ScholarPubMed, parts 16 and 17, passim.

35 Special Study No. 24, pp. 188–89.

36 General Study No. 1, pp. 109–10.

37 Ibid., p. 207.

38 Ibid.

39 Josephson, Matthew, Sidney Hillman: Statesman of American Labor (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1952), pp. 29–33Google Scholar.

40 Lee, Kendrick“Labor in Government,” Editorial Research Reports, I (April 29, 1943), 277–79Google Scholar.

41 Lund, Wendell, “The Labor Production Division,” American Federationist, XLIX (Sept.1943). 7–9Google Scholar.

42 International Labour Office, Labour-Management Cooperation in United States War Production, Studies and Reports, New Series, No. 6 (Montreal: International Labour Office, 1948), pp. 161–62Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., p. 164.

44 Ibid. Assistant directors or special assistants were appointed in the following industries: automotive, building materials, chemicals, consumer durable goods, containers, farm machinery and equipment, general industrial equipment, tools, lumber and lumber products, paper and paper board, plumbing and heating, printing and publishing, radio and radar, shipbuilding, textiles (including clothing and leather), transportation equipment, steel, and war utilities. Joint representatives were appointed in construction machinery, rubber, safety and technical equipment, aluminum, copper, cork, asbestos and fibrous glass, mining, miscellaneous minerals, tin, lead, zinc, and aircraft.

45 More precisely, the Mine, Mill Plan proposed the establishment of a National Non-Ferrous Metals Victory Committee composed of representatives from industry, labor, and government, to deal with such broad problems of production as idle capacity, plant conversion, and labor protection. Subcommittees would be established for the subdivisions of the industry, such as zinc, copper, and brass. At the plant level, joint management-union committees were to meet regularly to discuss specific production problems. U.S. Congress, Senate, Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, Hearings, 77th Congress, 1st Session (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942), pp. 4216–17Google ScholarPubMed.

46 Ibid.

47 Jensen, Vernon H., Collective Bargaining in the Nonferrous Metals Industry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), pp. 23–26Google Scholar.

48 The New York. Times, March 1, 1942.

49 DeSchweinitz, Dorothea, Labor and Management in a Common Enterprise (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), pp. 2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also ILO Study No. 6, p. 184, for an industry by industry analysis.

50 U.S. War Production Board, Production Guide for Labor-Management Committees, passim and 1,600 Labor-Management Committees in the War Production Drive, War Production Drive Headquarters (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942), passim.Google Scholar For a detailed study of the system see ILO Study No. 6, pp. 184–259, and Chalmers, W. Ellison, “Labor-Management Production Committees,” Warne, Colston E., ed., Yearbook, of American Labor (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), I., 233 ffGoogle Scholar.

51 The New York, Times, April 19, 1942.

52 ILO Study No. 6, p. 30.

53 Lee, “Labor in Government,” pp. 279–80.

54 ILO Study No. 6, pp. 31–32.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid., pp. 45–46.

57 U.S. Office of Price Administration, Chronology of the OPA, Historical Reports on War Administration, Miscellaneous Publication No. 3 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946), August 28, 1941Google Scholar.

58 Afros, John L., “Labor Participation in the Office of Price Administration,” American Political Science Review, XL (June 1946), 458–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Ibid., p. 461.

60 Ibid., pp. 461–62.

61 Ibid.,.p. 463.

62 Robert R. R. Brooks, “Price Control and Rationing,” in Labor Yearbook, pp. 216–24.

63 Afros, “OPA Labor Participation,” p. 479.

64 Brooks, “Price Control,” p. 221 and Afros, “OPA Labor Participation,” p. 476.

65 Afros, “OPA Labor Participation,” p. 476.

66 Brooks, “Price Control,” p. 222.

67 Afros, “OPA Labor Participation,” pp. 478–79.