American Federation of Labor history

The American Federation of Labor (AFL) was the predominant labor organization in the United States from the late 1880s until 1936, when a split occurred that generated the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It was rooted in a culture of labor radicalism that flowed from the post–Civil War period to the Second World War, but in time it became an increasingly moderate, even conservative, force representing particularly (though not exclusively) skilled workers in craft unions.
The founding of the organization can be traced to 1881, when a national gathering in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, came together under the banner of the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada (FOTLU). It replaced the National Labor Union that had existed from 1866 to 1872 but had been pulled apart by the lure of divergent electoral strategies. FOTLU veered away from electoralism, also seeking to be more efficiently organized and more narrowly focused than the more expansive labor reform group, the Knights of Labor. While some dedicated socialists were prominent among its founding members, other key founders were not, and the federation as a whole helped to consolidate the trend toward an increasingly nonradical “pure and simple” unionism in the U.S. labor movement.
“We have numberless trades unions, trades’ assemblies or councils, Knights of Labor and various other local, national, and international unions,” declared the call for the national conference that formed FOTLU. “But great as has been the work done by these bodies, there is vastly more that can be done by a combination of all these organizations in a federation of trades.” Among the key architects of the new organization were Samuel GOMPERS and Adolph Strasser of the Cigarmakers Union and Peter J. McGuire (often credited as initiating both May Day and Labor Day) of the Carpenters Union. All had come out of the socialist movement, and the influence of Karl Marx is clearly perceptible in the preamble of the FOTLU constitution: “A struggle is going on in the nations of the civilized world between the oppressors and the oppressed of all countries, a struggle between capital and labor . . . This history of the wage-workers of all countries is but the history of constant struggle and misery engendered by ignorance and disunion; whereas the history of the non-producers of all ages proves that a minority, thoroughly organized, may work wonders for good or evil. . . . Conforming to the old adage, ‘In union there is strength,’ the formation of a Federation embracing every trade and labor organization in North America, a union founded upon a basis as broad as the land we live in, is our only hope.”
This preamble was carried over into a new constitution in 1886 that reorganized the organization under a new name—the American Federation of Labor. The AFL’s president, from its founding until his death in 1924 (with a oneyear hiatus) was the tough-minded Samuel Gompers, who moved in an increasingly pragmatic direction.
Initially, many associated FOTLU and the AFL with the socialism that had significant influence in some working-class circles of the time. Socialism—favoring replacement of capitalism by social ownership and democratic control over the economy—was not viewed positively in this era of triumphal industrial capitalism. Gompers explained that the allegation of his being part of a socialist conspiracy was a slander based partly on a misunderstanding. “In those early days not more than half a dozen people had grasped the concept that economic organization and control over economic power were the fulcrum which made possible influence and power in all other fields,” he later wrote in his autobiography. “Control over the basic things of life gives power that may be used for good in every relationship of life. This fundamental concept on which the American Federation of Labor was later founded was at that time not formulated in men’s minds, and the lines between Socialists and trade unionists were very blurred.”
Indeed, during the 1880s, Gompers became known not as an advocate of socialism but as an advocate of what became known as “pure and simple trade unionism.” This meant organizing workers into unions that would focus on struggles at workplaces around issues of higher wages, fewer hours of work, and improved working conditions— to the exclusion of radical social causes, whether socialism or anything else. When asked what the labor movement wanted, Gompers once replied simply: “More.” Yet Pennsylvania Federation of Labor president James Maurer has left this record of one of Gompers’s many “pure and simple” union speeches: “If a workingman gets a dollar and a half for ten hours’ work, he lives up to that standard of a dollar and a half, and he knows that a dollar seventy-five would improve his standard of living and he naturally strives to get that dollar and seventy-five. After that he wants two dollars and more time for leisure, and he struggles to get it. Not satisfied with two dollars he wants more; not only two and a quarter, but a nine-hour workday. And so he will keep on getting more and more until he gets it all or the full value of all he produces.”
Despite the underlying militancy of this perspective, however, Gompers steered the federation into what labor radicals would denounce as a “class-collaborationist” course. He sought positive relations with business leaders in organizations such as the National Civic Federation, and—with the slogan of “support our friends and punish our enemies”—backed “capitalist politicians” willing to take pro-labor positions. By the early 1900s, he was openly and vehemently denouncing socialists and socialism (though always expressing admiration, even in his endof- life autobiography, for Karl Marx). Nor was he above siding with employers and government authorities in efforts to destroy the radical Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) during World War I. More than this, and despite an expansive rhetoric about the U.S. labor movement embracing all workers, Gompers and those around him adopted bigoted attitudes toward blacks, Asians, and new immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, as well as toward women. By contrast, he was quite vocal and proactive—from the 1917 Russian Revolution onward—in opposing communism within the labor movement as well as globally. Many saw the AFL as white, male, and “100% American”—and while Gompers never argued for such a position, his policies contributed to making this a reality.
The policies pioneered by Gompers were continued by William Green, who assumed the AFL presidency with the death of Gompers in 1924. As an official in the UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Green had favored industrial unionism and union involvement in broad social reform efforts, but as AFL president he would become the foremost standard bearer of the dominant American Federation of Labor orientation: narrow craft unionism and a “pure and simple” focus on seeking to improve wages and conditions at the unionized workplace. This contributed to the erosion of AFL membership, as skilled trades in many sectors of the economy were being sidelined by the rise of mass production industries.
For many, “pure and simple” unionism had evolved into an exclusive concern for the narrow economic interests of unions’ own members, with a disregard for larger social questions. An approach sometimes called “business unionism” often predominated: Not only were union leaders very pro-business (seeking far-reaching accommodations with employers), but also they saw the union itself as a business providing services to its paying members, with union representatives being called “business agents” and notions of democratic control by the membership being replaced by a notion of hierarchical “businesslike” efficiency. With the phenomenal growth of gangsterism in the “roaring twenties,” corruption and racketeering made significant inroads among some unions in the federation. And in the conservative political atmosphere of the decade, the AFL inclined toward an acceptance of the dominant laissez-faire philosophy—rejecting the idea of government programs to help disadvantaged workers.
Within AFL ranks, voices of dissent and opposition to craft union conservatism grew. A. Philip Randolph, leader of the all-black Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, successfully fought to get his union into the AFL, and then consistently protested against racist practices in the ranks of organized labor. With the devastating impact of the decadelong Great Depression that began in 1930, increasing numbers joined socialists and other radicals in challenging laissez-faire and pro-business perspectives. Most significantly, a number of unions organized on an industrial basis (including all skill levels and occupations within a given industry) began arguing against the narrow craft orientation of the American Federation of Labor. This included John L. LEWIS of the United Mine Workers, David Dubinsky of the International Ladies Garment Workers, and Sidney Hillman of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, who spearheaded the formation of a Committee for Industrial Organization in 1935.
The reaction of Green and other AFL officials to the industrial union challenge was to denounce and finally expel them, only to see the industrial unions transform their committee into the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The CIO embraced a spirit of union militancy and radicalism (allowing the active participation of various socialists and communists as CIO organizers) that engendered—throughout the late 1930s—a series of dramatic strikes that organized millions of unskilled and semiskilled workers into a variety of new unions: the United Auto Workers (UAW), the United Electrical Workers (UE), the United Steelworkers (USWA), the National Maritime Union (NMU), the Transport Workers Union (TWU), the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union (ILWU), and many others.
CIO staff member Shirley Quill’s description of AFL union officials conveys profound cultural differences between the two federations: “The AFL leaders were exactly what they appeared to be. Representing plumbers, carpenters, electricians and dozens of the old-line organizations, they were crafty, comfortable, conspicuously well-fed, successful powerbrokers in their own fiefdoms. They competently negotiated contracts covering wages, hours, working conditions and pensions, and stared blankly when such arcane subjects as discrimination, minority rights, seniority for women and voter registration appeared on the agenda.”
And Victor Reuther (brother of UAW leader Walter REUTHER) later reminisced: “AFL officials periodically journeyed to Florida to spend several weeks, spending a few hours each morning in formal session, then going to the races or golf course or whatever for the rest of the day. The CIO Executive Board, under Philip Murray and then under Walter, usually met in a hotel conference room in some northern industrial city—Pittsburgh, Chicago, New York, or Washington—never too far removed from industrial workers who wanted to come before it to discuss urgent problems.”
“Labor’s civil war” generated much debilitating conflict and destructive “raiding” practices— often with AFL unions signing backdoor contracts with employers who were interested in keeping out the more militant CIO. Yet the CIO challenge also played an important role in galvanizing sectors of the American Federation of Labor (most dramatically the International Brotherhood of Teamsters) to organize on an industrial basis, and in modernizing itself in a variety of ways. More than this, elements of the CIO ferment and experience were brought into the AFL when some of the industrial rebels rejoined the federation. Most dramatic (though quite short-lived) was the return of John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers. Earlier and more sustained was the “coming home” of David Dubinsky, the liberal-minded ex-socialist, who brought with him not only the ILGWU but also the former communist leader Jay Lovestone. Lovestone would become the architect and director of the American Federation of Labor’s fiercely anticommunist foreign policy, which soon became interwoven with efforts of the U.S. State Department.
An additional point of convergence was the full support that both labor federations gave to the U.S. war effort during World War II—establishing “no strike” pledges and participating in the War Labor Board, for example. Both had also become aligned with the Democratic Party, thanks to pro-labor policies advanced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. With the end of the war and the beginning of the cold war, a development in the CIO would establish another point of convergence: the massive and thoroughgoing purge of communists and communist-led unions, and the marginalization of other left-wing influences. Not long after, the AFL would take measures to check the influence of racketeering. These developments—and the deaths in 1952 of AFL president William Green and CIO president Philip Murray—set the stage for a merger.
The AFL was now led by ex-plumber George MEANY, of whom more than one CIO leader had a low opinion. Phil Murray had described Meany as “some kind of loud-mouth bum from New York,” commenting, “I can’t stand him . . . don’t want to have anything to do with him.” The younger and more dynamic Walter Reuther— one-time socialist, bristling with innovations and idealistic rhetoric—was now president of the CIO. When the merger came, however, and the AFL-CIO came into existence in 1955, it was George Meany, a master of organizational maneuver and expertise, who quickly asserted himself as the dominant force. With the merger, about 36 percent of the U.S. labor force was unionized, an all-time high.
Meany’s comments shortly after assuming the AFL-CIO presidency reflect the triumph of an extreme variant of the American Federation of Labor’s “pure and simple” ideology. “I stand for the profit system; I believe in the profit system. I believe it is a wonderful incentive,” Meany declared to a group of U.S. businessmen. “I believe in the free enterprise system completely. I believe in the return on capital investment. I believe in management’s right to manage.” Rhetorically asking “what there is to disagree about,” Meany concluded: “It is merely for us to disagree, if you please, as to what share the workers get, what share management gets from the wealth produced by the particular enterprise.” Despite the dissatisfaction of labor dissidents, this orientation would be predominant in the AFL-CIO for years to come.
Further reading

• Buhle, Paul. Taking Care of Business: Samuel Gompers, George Meany, Lane Kirkland, and the Tragedy of American Labor. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1999. 
• Dubofsky, Melvin, and Warren Van Tine, eds. Labor Leaders in America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987. 
• Kaufman, Stuart Bruce. Samuel Gompers and the Origins of the American Federation of Labor. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973. 
• Le Blanc, Paul. A Short History of the U.S. Working Class, From Colonial Times to the Twenty-First Century. Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books, 1999. 
• Reuther, Victor G. The Brothers Reuther and the Story of the CIO, A Memoir. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. 
• Robinson, Archie. George Meany and His Times, A Biography. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981.