Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T12:28:50.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Schism within the World Federation of Trade Unions: Government and Trade-Union Diplomacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Anthony Carew
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The creation of the World Federation of Trade Unions in October 1945 was intended as a major step towards international trade-union unity. Less than four years later, in January 1949, the secession of its British, American and Dutch affiliates, soon to be followed by the bulk of Western trade union centres, left the international labour movement more divided than ever. Narrative accounts of the WFTU's brief life as a united body and of the developments leading to the schism have long been available and are not matters of contention. As to the cause of the split, however, there is less agreement. The ostensible reason for the secession was the failure of the WFTU to reach agreement with the International Trade Secretariats (ITSs) on their relationship with one another. Those who split away always contended that disagreements over trade-union matters led to the rupture. In recent years, however, with the opening up of national archives, attention has turned to the influence of governments in the field of international trade unionism. In particular the interventionist role of the US State Department acting through the American Federation of Labour has been chronicled. However, as yet no full account of the activities of the British Foreign Office in this area is available. Given the fact that the British Trades Union Congress was the instigator of the schism and the single most influential union centre to leave the WFTU, an examination of Foreign Office relations with it would seem to be warranted. Equally the relationships between the Foreign Office and the State Department and between the TUC and the American Congress of Industrial Organisations, the two principal Western centres in the WFTU, are matters of considerable interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , December 1984 , pp. 297 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1984

References

1 John, P. Windmuller, American Labor and the International Labor Movement 1940 to 1953 (Ithaca, 1954);Google Scholar Lewis, L. Lorwin, The International Labor Movement (New York, 1953);Google Scholar Allen, V. L., Trade Union Leadership (London, 1957);Google Scholar Walter, Schevenels, Forty- Five Years International Federation of Trade Unions (Brussels, 1956);Google Scholar Jean-Francois, Michel, “La scission de la Fédération syndicale mondiale (1947–1949)”, in: Le Mouvement Social, No 117 (1981), pp. 33–52 (pp. 38ff. on the internal alignment of forces).Google Scholar

2 At its foundation the plan had been to incorporate the ITSs, trade-union federations grouping unions by industries and trades, into the new structure as industrial departments. Disagreement arose over the degree of autonomy that the departments should have and no solution was reached. Discussions between the WFTU and the lTSs continued from 1945 to 1948 without success. From the beginning the TUC made its continued membership of the WFTU contingent on a satisfactory settlement of this issue.

3 Ronald, Radosh, American Labor and United States Foreign Policy (New York, 1969);Google Scholar Roy, Godson, American Labor and European Politics (New York, 1976);Google Scholar Peter, Weiler, “The United States, International Labor and the Cold War: The Break-Up of the World Federation of Trade Unions”, in: Diplomatic History, V (1981), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

4 Allen, , Trade Union Leadership, op. cit., p. 290.Google Scholar

5 Lord, Citrin, Two Careers (London, 1967), p. 237.Google Scholar

6 Interchange of information between the Labour Party, the TUC and the Foreign Office; note on discussion with Mr Deakin with regard to the WFTU, April 24, 1947, FO 371/67613. All Foreign Office documents referred to are lodged at the Public Record Office, London.

7 Hickerson, memorandum to Russell, January 3, State Department Central Decimal File, 800.5043/6–2347. All State Department documents referred to are to be found in the Decimal Series and are lodged at the National Archives, Washington (DC).

8 US Embassy Paris, cable to State Department, 04 12, 800.5043/4–1247.Google Scholar

9 Mason, P., minute, May 7, FO 371/64485 B.Google Scholar

10 McCarthy, D. J., minute, 05 10, FO 371/676 13.Google Scholar

11 Gore-Booth, P. to British Ambassador Moscow, 06, FO 371/67613.Google Scholar

12 Nitze, P., memorandum to Acheson, 0516;Google Scholar memorandum of conversation Acheson, Carey, and Ross, , “The CIO position in the World Federation of Trade Unions”, 05 19, 800.5043/6–2347 and 5–1947.Google Scholar

13 Report of the 79th Annual Trades Union Congress, 1947, pp. 455–57. The typical trade-union mentality in this area is well captured by Marjorie Bremner in her discussion of attitudes of trade-union-sponsored Labour MPs. She points out that although the trade-union MPs tended to be the most loyal supporters of Bevin, they were also inclined to be the most anti-American group of Labour Parliamentarians. This she explains in terms of their traditional view of the USA as a capitalist country and their simplistic belief that the USSR was, after all, a socialist country – a land free from bosses. Marjorie, Bremner, “An Analysis of British Parliamentary Thought Concerning the United States in the Post-War Period”, (Ph.D. thesis, London, 1950), p. 125.Google Scholar

14 Gore-Booth to British Ambassador Moscow, June.

15 Gore-Booth to British Ambassador Paris, June 5, FO 371/67613.

16 US Embassy Prague, cable to State Department, 06 II, 800.5043/6–1147.Google Scholar

17 Laurence A. Steinhardt, US Embassy Prague, to State Department, 800.5043/7–147. Emphasis added.

18 The basis of this interpretation was an article in Bolshevik, November 15, reported in British Ambassador Moscow to Hankey, R. M. A., 12 17, FO 371/71648.Google Scholar

19 Allen, , Trade Union Leadership, p. 298.Google Scholar

20 General Council members belonging to the Freedom First Group included Sir George Chester (NUBSO). Lincoln Evans (ISTC) and Andrew Naesmith (Textile Unions), Department of State, Division of Biographic Information. Of these, Evans and Chester were at the time members of the International Committee of the TUC, Evans and Naesmith were members of the Anglo-American Productivity Council, under whose aegis much of the American-British trade-union liaison in this period was conducted. On the IRD see Richard, Fletcher, “How the FO Waged Secret Propaganda War in Britain”, in: The Observer, 01 29, 1978;Google Scholar Lyn, Smith, “Covert British Propaganda: The Information Research Department: 1947-1977”,Google Scholar in: Millennium, , Journal of International Studies. IX (1980), pp. 67–83.Google Scholar

21 The distinguishing feature of the AFL's international policy was its virulent anti- Communism, It had declined to affiliate to the WFTU, refusing to have any dealings with the Russian trade unions. In the years after 1945 the AFL made common cause with several ITSs in a bid to prevent the latter being subsumed under the WFTU.

22 Herbert, Tracey, memorandum of conversation with Irving Brown, 11 21, 1947, TUC file 978;Google Scholar Lovett, , cable to US Ambassador London, 11 29, 851.504/11–2747. TUC documentation is lodged at the TUC, London.Google Scholar

23 US Embassy London, cable to State Department, 12 30, 800.5043/12–3047.Google Scholar

24 The AFL leaders had just come from seeing President Truman and were very enthusiastic about Marshall Aid. Makins was told of the AFL's anxiety over the continuing public silence of the TUC on the aid plan. They felt that it would suffer a serious setback the TUC did not respond favourably. British Ambassador Washington, cable to Secretary of State, December 20, FO 371/62784.

25 Bevin, , cable to British Ambassador Washington, 12 24, Bevin Papers, FO 800/493.Google Scholar

26 British Ambassador Washington, cable to Secretary of State, January 6, 1948, FO 371/62784.

27 US Embassy Paris, cable to State Department. 01 7, 840.50 Recov. 1–748.Google Scholar

28 US Embassy London, cable to State Department, 01 13, 840.50 Recov. 1–1348.Google Scholar

29 Unsigned memorandum to Secretary of State, January 24, FO 371/68943. Assistance was indeed forthcoming. Foreign Office officials helped Healey to draft the document that formed the basis of the Conference discussion.

30 US Ambassador London, cable to State Department, 12 30, 1947, 800.5043/12–3047.Google Scholar

31 Swayzee, , memorandum to Nitze and Hickerson, 01 7, 1948, 800.5043/1–748.Google Scholar

32 Memorandum of conversation Marshall, , Murray, , Carey, and Ross, , 01 20, 1948, 840.5043 Recov. 1–3048.Google Scholar

33 US Embassy London, cable to State Department, 11 22, 1947, 800.5043/11–214.Google Scholar

34 US Embassy London, cable to State Department, 12 30, 800.5043/12–3047.Google Scholar

35 Tewson to Saillant, January 28, 1948, TUC file 564.19.

36 Tomlinson, D. J. (Ministry of Labour), memorandum to Deakin and Tewson, 01 27; A. Kolarz, memorandum to Tewson, 02 3; E. Bell, memorandum to Tewson and Deakin, 02 4, TUC file 564.19.Google Scholar

37 Kuznetsov, , cable to Deakin, 01 29, TUC file 564.19.Google Scholar

38 Information Bulletin World Federation of Trade Unions, February 15.

39 Allen, , Trade Union Leadership, p. 289.Google Scholar

40 FGTB to TUC, February 9; minutes of TUC International Committee, February 17, TUC file 978; Bevin, cable to British Ambassador Washington, February 19, FO 371/71806.

41 Rob, J. R., memorandum to British Ambassador Washington, 02 19, FO 371/68943.Google Scholar

42 British Ambassador Washington, cable to Bevin, 02 18, FO 371/71806.Google Scholar

43 Ibid.

44 Hubert, Gee, memorandum “AFL and Trade Union Conference”, 02 21, FO 371/68943.Google Scholar

45 Bevin, , cable to British Ambassador Washington, 02 19, FO 371/71806.Google Scholar

46 US Ambassador London, cable to Lovett, , 02 21, 840.50 Recov. 2–2148.Google Scholar

47 Oldenbroek, J. H. to Meany, 02 19, Dubinsky Papers, Box 261, file 3 B, International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, New York.Google Scholar

48 AFL cable to TUC, February 21, TUC file 978.

49 US Ambassador London, cable to Lovett, 02 21.Google Scholar

50 US Consulate Antwerp to State Department, 02 5, 800.5043/2–548.Google Scholar

51 US Embassy Brussels, cable to State Department, 02 11,800.5043/2–1148.Google Scholar

52 Windmuller, , American Labor and the International Labor Movement, op. cit., p. 127.Google Scholar

53 Carey, , cable to Kuznetsov, 02 12, TUC file 564.19.Google Scholar

54 OMGUS (Berlin) to State Department, 02 24 and 03 2, 800.5043/2–2448 and 3–248.Google Scholar

55 Report of the 80th Annual Trades Union Congress, 1948, pp. 186–88.

56 Makins, , memorandum to Hall-Patch, 05 3, FO 371/71806. However, it seems likely that the two Governments held different views as to which parts of the structure should be emphasised. For the Americans the Europe-wide liaison body held the most attraction both as a vehicle for injecting a truly “European” dimension into the Marshall Plan and as a potential counter to the WFTU. The British Government was almost certainly more concerned to establish trade-union liaison at national level. This fitted in with their strategy to minimise the importance of the CEEC, downgrade the element of European integration in the Marshall Plan, and allow the greatest degree of freedom for economic planning country by country.Google Scholar

57 In adopting this stand Tewson was reflecting the line taken by the British Government.

58 Brown, to Lovestone, , 03 21, Florence Thorne Papers, AFL Collection, State Histoncal Society of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar

59 Brown to Lovestone, April 26, Dubinsky Papers, Box 261, file 3 A.

60 State Department, cable to US Ambassader London, March 10, 840.50 Recov. 3–948.

61 Text of telephone message from D. J. Tomlinson (Ministry of Labour) to TUC, March 5, TUC file 564.19.

62 Gee, minute, March 3, FO 371/7 1806. Brown completely rejected the suggestion that the anti-Communist faction in the CGIL could become a majority. To Lovestone he wrote: “The British are fostering the illusion that the opposition can build up a legal majority and then take over the leadership at the next convention of CGIL. Can you imagine the CP machine letting this happen? But this fantasy is shared by Sarragat [sic] and his boys”. Brown to Lovestone, April 26.

63 State Department, cable to US Embassy London, March 8, 840.50 Recov. 3/648.

64 US Embassy London, cables to State Department, 03 6 and 9, 04 5, 840.50 Recov. 3–648 and 948, 4–548.Google Scholar

65 Memorandum of conversation Murray, Carey, Golden and Berger, March 23, 800.5043/348; State Department, cable to US Ambassador Rome, March 24, 840.50 Recov. 3–2448.

66 Windmuller, , American Labor and the International Labor Movement, p. 135.Google Scholar

67 US Embassy Oslo, cable to State Department, 07 22, 800.5043/7–2248; British Ambassador Oslo to Bevin, July 31, FO 37 1/72855.Google Scholar

68 British Ambassador Oslo to Bevin, 07 31.Google Scholar

69 US Embassy London, cable to State Department, April 7, 840.50 Recov. 4–748.

70 TUC International Committee Minutes, June 16.

71 Windmuller, , American Labor and the International Labor Movement, p. 137.Google Scholar

72 TUC International Committee Minutes, July 27.

73 Windmuller, , American Labor and the International Labor Movement, p. 138.Google Scholar

74 US Embassy London, cable to State Department, April 7.

75 Press release, Central Office of Information, May 20, FO 371/72855.

76 TUC International Committee Minutes, July 27; US Embassy London, cable to State Department, August 10. 800.5043/8–1048.

77 Memorandum of conversation Golden, Swayzee and Tobin, August 20, 840.5043/8–2048; Lovestone, report on behalf of the AFL delegation to ERP Trade Union Conference, July 29–30, Dubinsky Papers, Box 261, file 4 B.

78 US Embassy London, cable to State Department, August 13, 800.5043/8–1348.

79 Ibid.

80 Hubert Gee to Archibald Gordon, November 23, FO 371/72856.

81 Foreign Office circular letter British Embassies, “Report on TUC Conference at Margate”, September 14, FO 371/72855.

82 US Embassy London, cable to State Department, September 16, 800.5043/9–1648.

83 State Department, cable to US Embassy London, September 18, 811.5043/9–1848.

84 British Embassy Paris, cable to Foreign Office, September 17, FO 371/72855; TUC International Committee Minutes, October 21.

85 Allen, , Trade Union Leadership, p. 308.Google Scholar

86 Davies, W. E. (British Labour Attaché), report on Paris meeting of WFTU Executive Board. September. FO 37 1/72856.Google Scholar

87 TUC International Committee Minutes, October 21.

88 British Embassy Moscow, cable to Foreign Office, November 13, FO 371/72856.

89 British Embassy Copenhagen to Foreign Office, November 11. FO 371/72856.

90 Hubert Gee to British Embassy Copenhagen, November 16, FO 371/72856.

91 Davies, report on Paris meeting; Gee to Gordon, November 23, FO 371/72856.

92 Gee, memorandum “The Break-up of the WFTU”, undated (February 1949?), Ministry of Labour Papers 13/600, Public Record Office.

93 The group consisted of Tewson (TUC), Evert Kupers (NVV, Holland), Leon Jouhaux (CGT-FO, France) and Walter Schevenels (Assistant General Secretary WFTU). For details of these secret meetings see correspondence between Jay Krane (a ClO employee attached to the WFTU) and Elmer Cope, October-December 1948, Krane Papers, Reuther Library, Wayne State University, Detroit.

94 The AFL's precise complaint against Schevenels was that, as WFTU assistant general secretary, he had recently co-ordinated an international fund-raising campaign to support striking French Communist miners. The AFL had bitterly opposed the strike. New York Times, January 25, 1949; statement by AFL International Labour Relations Committee, February 2, TUC file 919.1.

95 Gee to McNeil, February 1, Ministry of Labour Papers 13/600.

96 Gee, “The Break-up of the WFTU”.

97 Memorandum (unsigned) to Secretary of State, January 26, Ministry of Labour Papers 13/600.

98 Gee, minute, February 9, ibid.

99 TUC International Committee Minutes, April 26; note of private and confidential meeting between AFL and ClO, April 28, TUC file 919.1.

100 Gee, “The Break-up of the WFTU”.

101 Gee, minute, April 1, Ministry of Labour Papers 13/600.

102 Such is the import of the argument in Weiler. “The United States, International Labor and the Cold War”, bc. cit.

103 See above, p. 324.