The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-09-29

dQODGlOQ OF JQ6 uloIlG clause dQQ
the legalization of the company
unions have been brought about
with the aid of the A. F. of L.
Council, which, through its spokes-
man, President William Green, has
endorsed the present set-up in the
industry and has prevented the
workers from gaining a possible
victory at the moment when the
workers organization was at its
height and the workers were de-
termined to go into action, when
tens of thousands of auto workers
were already on strike? Has this
same situation not been brought
about in the steel industry through
the intervention of President Green
who, together with Mike Tighe, the
President of the Amalgsmated AS
ISOLATION of the I. s. and T. w. u,
ordered the strike called off after
a special convention in April had
worked out demands and decided
to strike for these demands? AS we
write this letter news comes that
the leaders of the U.TW. are ready
to send 100000 striking textile work.
ers back to work on the basis of the
Winant report which brazenly calls
upon the strikers to return to work
without any of their demands
granted. If this is done, the U.TW.
leaders will be guilty of the great
est betrayal in the history of the
labor movement
A. F. L. Leaders and johnson
Permit us to mention one more
instance in this connection. If we
dwell on these subjects at length it
is only because we wish to show
where these policies Of the A. F. of
L. Council will lead the labor move
ment. Take the case Of General
Johnson. At the Washington con-
vention of the A. F. of L., President
Green in introducing johnson to
the delegates, stated, Il have been
privileged to associate with General
Johnson and to work with him and
serve with him. =" HE is the
very man who was needed to serve
as Administrator of the National
Recovery Act. !" ct want to re-
peat again what I have previously
said, that if all others fail, if all
other groups become discouraged
and give up the fight, labor will
stand with the General and see it
all through. I pledge to him our
support" The General has just
made the most vicious attack on
the heroic textile strikers. But this
same General Johnson was on more
than one occasion praised by the
leaders of the A. F. of L. And the
General also spoke very highly about
the A. F. of L. leaders at a meet
ing of the outstanding capitalists of
the country. Was this not because
General johnson, as the spokesman
of the employers, was all the time
aware that the A. F. of L. leaders
were actually helping him put
through policies in the interests of
the employers and therefore against
the workers? For it must be clear
to us all that the interests of the
employers and the workers are not
and cannot be the same. While the
workers are interested in high
wages and better conditions, the
employers are out for lower wages
and more profits. Why did the A.
F. of L. leaders make this mistake
in General Johnson? Because it was
not merely a wrong judgment of
an individual. 1t was and is a wrong
policy that they are following as
far as the workers are concerned.
Once they start out with the policy
of common interests Of capital and
labor" they cannot but serve the
interests of the employers. 1t should
have been clear from the start
that General Johnson is a repre-
sentative Of the employers, an en-
ployer of labor who himself main
tains in his establishment an open
shop in the form of a company
union. But yet when General John
son went to California in an effort
to break the general strike in
Frisco, organized violence against
the militant workers, the Commu-
nists, not only did the A. F. of L
leaders fail to denounce this strike
breaking on his part, but some Of
them, including President Green
denounced the general strike anc
the Communists. Is it not clear that
both in Frisco and the textile strike
Johnson was attacking the trade
unions and serving the interests Of
the capitalists? But even now it il
not enough to denounce Genera
johnson and at the same time
praise Donald Richberg and Ma.
dame Perkins. Or is it possible tt
exempt President Roosevelt from
the whole of the responsibility fol
the present attack on the workers
Certainly not. General johnson
Richberg, Perkins and Roosevelt a
their head are all defending thu
interests of the employing class.
New War on Communists
While the employers were and arr
making these attacks, the A. F. O.
L. leaders were engaged, not in at.
lacking the employers and thu
MIRA. officials, but the radicals, thu
Communists, the unions of thu
Trade Union Unity League, anc
other independent trade unions
Even today when it should be clea
to every worker that the bosses arr
out to crush the trade unions ant
to worsen conditions, Presiden
Green has declared anew his I'm
holy war on the Communists, call
ing for expulsion of radicals ant
Communists from the unions, call
ing upon the police to make wa
on militant workers, and upon tn
Labor Department of the govern
ment to carry through mass depor
tationS. Are the militant worker
and the Communists the enemy
Just look at the present textil
strike. What are the radicals an
Communists doing? They are bend
ing every effort to win this strike