Annual Report of NAACP Labor Department, December 30, 1946

ANNUAL REPORT OF NAACP LABOR DEPARTMENT

December 30, 1946

The NAACP’s Labor Department was set up in July 1946.1 Its objectives are:

    Elimination of discriminatory employment practices in industry and government which result in refusal to hire colored workers, wage differentials based on race, unequal opportunities for training and promotion, unfair dismissals, and segregation in employment because of race.

    Greater participation of colored persons in the trade union movement.

    Ending of segregated locals, auxiliaries, and any other discriminatory practices in labor unions.

    Passage of state and federal FEPC legislation.

    Inclusion of non-discrimination clauses in state and federal laws pertaining to the employment of persons in the execution of government contracts.

    Joining with labor unions for the enactment of legislation favored by labor and for the repealing of unfavorable labor legislation.

    Expanding and improving opportunities for vocational training on a non-segregated basis.

To assist in implementing these plans, we have formed a National Labor Committee2 made up of the following persons:

Board Members3
Charles H. Houston
Alfred Baker Lewis
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt
A. Philip Randolph
Palmer Weber

Public Member
Father Francis J. Gilligan
Chairman Governor's (Minnesota)
Interracial Commission

CIO Members
Walter P. Reuther
President of UAW-CIO

George L. P. Weaver
Director, National CIO Committee
to Abolish Discrimination

Willard S. Townsend
President, Transport Service
Employees of America

AFL Members

Boris Shishkin
Economist, AFL

Frank Fenton
Director of
Organization, AFL

Nelson Cruikshank
Director of Social
Insurance, AFL

Each branch is asked to organize a labor committee, especially in the strategic industrial areas. To assure a uniform approach, we have prepared a manual which has been sent to key branches for criticism and revision. Ultimately, this document will be printed and available for general distribution among the branches. At its first meeting in October, the National Labor Committee agreed upon the following major legislative goals on which there should be joint NAACP and labor union action:

  1. Federal and State FEPC Laws
  2. Federal Civil Rights Legislation
  3. Anti-Lynching Legislation
  4. An Anti-Poll Tax Law
  5. Federal Housing Legislation
  6. Minimum Wage Legislation
  7. Federal Control of Employment Service
  8. Federal Aid to Education
Cooperation with Labor

The July NAACP conference adopted a resolution supporting the organizing drives of the AFL and the CIO in the South.4 From time to time we have received reports of cooperation extended to unions by our local branches. For example, the Pulp and Sulphite Workers of the AFL, the Steel Workers of the CIO, and others report cooperation of branches both in organizing and strikes.

The weeks ahead hold many severe tests for labor and minority groups. The NAACP’s Labor Department will oppose with vigor any attempts in Congress to saddle on the American working people legislation designed to curb the effectiveness of trade unions.5 We shall combat also the more insidious propaganda campaigns which are aimed at driving a wedge between various groups of our citizens by making it appear that interests of consumers and working people are different. Since the great majority of consumers are also wage earners, the fight for better wages and greater security is the fight of the majority of the American people.

Employment Problems

Although we now have less than two million unemployed in the country, the meager information at hand seems to indicate that, even at this time, colored persons are disproportionately unemployed. Studies made by the Bureau of Census for the Final Report of the FEPC showed unemployment of colored persons to be approximately two and a half times as great as among whites.6 Since these figures were samples only, it is difficult to draw important conclusions from them. However, we do know that in many major cities pre-war patterns of discrimination are again asserting themselves. For example, in Washington the Capital Transit Company which for years defied the government in its efforts to obtain employment for colored workers as operators now boldly advertises for such persons and still refuses to accept colored employees for this type of work.7

In far too many industries, colored persons find opportunities for promotion and still subject to rigid limitations. All of this points to the importance of FEP legislation and the NAACP will work with other groups for the enactment of this type of law in the new Congress.8 In addition, the state branches in California, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Wisconsin should work vigorously for desirable legislation in their states. (The present Wisconsin and Indiana laws are not effective.) The Labor Department will assist them in this regard.

We are fortunate in having a Director of Branches who is from an important industrial area of the country.9 He has given valuable aid in promoting the department’s program.

In the following fields, our branches will play an increasingly important role.

Tax Supported Employment Service

When the USES was returned to the states by Congress, the NAACP saw the importance of seeking the establishment of standards which would provide for minority groups protection against discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The employment service makes approximately 500,000 placements a month throughout the country. For the next two years, although it is under state control, it will be supported by millions of dollars out of the Federal treasury.10

In September at the request of the NAACP, a number of national organizations joined in a conference with the Secretary of Labor, Lewis B. Schwellenbach.11 At that time, we proposed that the Department of Labor require in its operating standards that no discriminatory orders should be accepted by states, that there should be no segregation in offices, and that all persons should have a full opportunity for employment on the staff of the agency. We also asked that states be required to make positive efforts to obtain the full utilization of minority groups by employers on a non-discriminatory basis.

As a token of good faith, those present at the conference asked Secretary Schwellenbach to agree to the immediate abolition of segregation in the District of Columbia Employment Service which, at that time, had colored applicants stand in separate lines and had separate files for their records. The Secretary agreed that the system of segregation in the District should be abolished and announced, for the first time, that this would take place in a few days. He kept his promise in this regard and did end segregation in the District of Columbia.12 For this, he deserves commendation. On the other hand, the Department of Labor completely bowed to the states in that it established a general policy against discrimination, but did not accept the specific recommendations made in the conference of September 11.

The Labor Department of the NAACP then took this matter up with the governors of individual states. New York was the only state which specifically indicated the following: “No discriminatory job orders will be accepted and . . . job referrals will be made on the basis of the applicants’ skills, abilities, and occupational classification.” Presumably Massachusetts and New Jersey will also follow this policy since they have FEPCs. Other states vary from friendly interest to vague promises. The friendly interest states include Illinois, West Virginia, Nebraska, South Dakota, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Arizona, and Ohio. In the group which seemed to be evading the problem we find Indiana, Nevada, Kentucky, and Montana. The most hostile reply came from Colorado. The Governor, while expressing sympathy for minority groups and opposition to discrimination, stated, “We would only be restricting the overall effectiveness of our service by refusing to accept orders from or make referrals to employers who indicate a racial preference . . . we do not feel that it is a proper function of the employment service actively to promote the full utilization of minority groups and thereby become identified with those groups in the sense of discriminating in their favor.” The diverse attitudes of governors on this problem show that minority groups will have little benefit from the employment service under state operation unless state branches of the NAACP insist that the Service be operated for the good of all persons. In addition, the replies of the governors also show the importance of having a law which will place the employment service under federal control again.

Construction

Because of the importance of employment in the construction industry, we have established a working relationship with the National Housing Agency and have urged branches to push for the full use of skilled colored persons in this field. We have also asked that our branches be alert to the possibility of securing employment for colored veterans who have skills which they acquired in the armed services. The importance of getting candidates into apprenticeship training has also been stressed in our communication to the branches.13

Communication

Branches in certain key areas have been asked to take follow-up action on the Labor Secretary’s effort to have the American Telephone and Telegraph Company establish a national policy providing for the full use of minority groups on a non-discriminatory basis. Because the NAACP in many places initiated efforts to obtain employment for colored operators by citing cases of discrimination to the FEPC, the Labor Department’s action was a logical follow up.14 Branches have received a statement from the Labor Department giving the policy of the Telephone Company: “The companies in the Bell System are quite generally employing a substantial number of colored people and the types of jobs for which such people qualify are continuing to increase. All of the companies are doing what they can for the employment of colored people in the light of conditions in their territories and are treating the matter on a long term basis in order that whatever is done shall be sound and enduring. We feel sure that this course of action over the years will produce the best results.”15

At the time of the writing of this report, we have received one communication from the West Coast indicating that the telephone company in San Francisco has started hiring colored girls as operators. Although this action is definitely the result of forces in the community which were active before the National Office established a Labor Department, it provides the ground work for follow up action in other cities on the Coast and seems to demonstrate that it is possible to change the employment practices of the telephone company in other cities at this time. However, it is very clear that the company still carries on extensive discriminatory practices against colored job-seekers.16

Government

Employment of colored persons in the Federal Government is steadily declining. It was generally predicted that since colored workers made their greatest gains in war-time agencies, the closing of these agencies would mean a rapid reconversion to peace-time discrimination among the old line agencies.17

It is safe to say that wherever our flag files over a Federal establishment there also do we find job discrimination. From occupied Germany to Japan, the American pattern of discrimination is in full force and effect, if one judges by the nature of complaints received.

* * * * * * * * *

From Germany we received a letter from a young man who stated in part:

“Although I am classified as a stenographer, I am assigned to a non-stenographic position even though stenographers are still greatly needed here in Berlin. I have been doing stenographic work for the past ten years, both as a civilian and in army life. . . . Another incident of gross discrimination is the housing one as it is impossible here for two groups to live in the same billets. This, in view of the fact that both white and colored employees requested the sharing of the same accommodations.”

We took this matter up with the War Department and obtained correction. The complainant’s latest letter states:

“I am (now) in the administrative section—acting chief clerk. This job is very suitable for me and gives me the opportunity to exercise my administrative and clerical abilities . . . I want to express my appreciation for the work the Association has done . . . I sincerely believe the other conditions I mentioned in my letter are improving somewhat.”

* * * * * * * * *

A young couple traveled nearly two thousand miles to take a job on an Indian reservation in Montana. When they arrived they were refused the work on the ground that the Indians were prejudiced against colored people. We obtained correction of this through the Indian Service and the complainants, who indicated they would not be available again for work until January, are to begin duty at that time.

* * * * * * * * *

Some of the Japanese are being required to follow the American pattern of racial discrimination, if the statements of another complainant are correct. This man charges that colored civilian employees, at an air base in Japan, must sit at a special table and when they enter the dining room the Japanese waiters are not permitted to let them use tables designated for whites. We have been informed by the War Department that this is contrary to Army policy and will be corrected.18

* * * * * * * * *

An employee of the Federal Communications Commission complained to us about an attempt to bar her from the cafeteria in the main Post Office Department Building. We took this matter up with the Acting Postmaster General, Mr. J. M. Donaldson. He asserted that it was the policy of the Department to serve all employees without discrimination. The Labor Secretary and a newspaper reporter visited the cafeteria to check on the policy. They were served without trouble. Every other colored person went to a small cafeteria beside the main eating place. We have sent a report on this matter to the National Alliance of Postal Employees and will join with them for any necessary future action.

* * * * * * * * *

Currently we are investigating charges of wholesale discrimination by the Social Security Administration and the War Department in recruiting former employees of the Office of Dependency Benefits at Newark, New Jersey. Statements from Secretary Patterson, War Department, and Commissioner Arthur Altmeyer, Social Security Administration, deny the charges. The Social Security Administration is vulnerable because its policy does not prohibit discrimination because of race. It provides that: “Disqualification of any person from taking an examination for appointment, from promotion, or from holding a position because of political or religious opinions or affiliations will be prohibited.” We expect to have further follow-up on these matters.

* * * * * * * * *

The State Department, which has a reputation in Washington of being the source of some of the worst discrimination against colored workers, is presently assembling information to offset foreign propaganda about racial discrimination in America. There is nothing to indicate, however, that this activity will make more liberal employment policies in the State Department or any other old line Federal agency.

A conference with the President on this problem is most essential. The White House must issue and provide for the policing of a stern order against discrimination because of race.

Textiles

Within the next six months it is expected that 30,000 new workers will be recruited for work in the Textile Industry. A large part of this industry is in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. We are alerting our branches in these areas to the importance of working for greater inclusion of colored persons. This will be an extremely difficult job in view of the gross discrimination against colored workers in the southern plants. However, it is a real challenge to those branches which are determined to gain greater work opportunities in their communities.19

Transportation

The railroads of the nation have done much to create and perpetuate patterns of job discrimination against colored employees. To hold those jobs now open and break the barriers which prevent promotion, those who believe in fair play must work through unions and in the courts.20 In addition, it appears that the Supreme Court decision in the Morgan Case has pointed up the need to safeguard the colored railway employees in the South who will not be used as pawns to deny colored passengers their civil rights.21

Currently we have before us the case of a train porter on the Illinois Central who was assaulted by a white conductor because of a disagreement which arose when the former did not insist that colored passengers accept segregated seating arrangements. The victim was beaten with a black jack in Memphis while a guard stood by “with his hand on his gun as if to shoot.”

Later this porter was dismissed by the company for “promoting social equality.”

A second porter was shot in Mississippi while fleeing from a conductor. This man states that the issue of segregation did not arise in his case, but the argument did begin because he did not force colored passengers into a certain coach. The car they entered was also occupied by colored persons, according to his statement. An agent of the company offered him money after the shooting, according to the information before us, but he refused to accept it.

At the time of the writing of this report these cases before the Department of Justice, but it does not seem that action will be taken on them. These forms of persecution show the great need for a strong civil rights law and ample machinery for rapidly bringing offenders to justice.22

MS: MP.

[1] Mitchell was appointed director of the newly created NAACP Labor Department, working out of the NAACP Washington bureau, effective in July 1946. Baltimore Afro-American 6/22/46, from Mitchell’s clippings file, MP; “New Labor Secretary,” Crisis 53 (August 1946): 251; Watson, Lion in the Lobby 145–47.


[2] See 8/31 and 9/30/46 for members whom Mitchell previously named.


[3] These committee members were on the NAACP National Board of Directors.


[4] The Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, which was organizing in North Carolina, was one of the unions being established in the South. Mitchell’s letter to Frank Fention, director of organization, AFL, 11/25/46, NAACP WB-183, DLC.


[5] Mitchell was referring to what would become the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, otherwise known as the Taft-Hartley Act, which repealed much of the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act of 1935 in reaction to the widespread labor unrest caused by the end of price controls and other government regulations over the economy in the postwar period. New York Times 10/20/44, E4, 1. The Taft-Hartley Act nullified parts of the Federal Anti-injunction (Norris-La Guardia) Act of 1932 and established new control of labor disputes by enlarging the National Labor Relations Board and providing that before terminating a collective-bargaining agreement, the union or employer had to notify the other party and a government mediation service. See http://print.infoplease.com/ce/bus/ A0847620.html.

In his testimony opposing S 55, S 360, S 105, S 133, and other related measures, Mitchell charged that the bills nullifying the National Labor Relations Act represented

a throw-back to a period of industrial strife which would gravely affect the welfare of all of our people. These bills are an invitation for management to renew espionage systems and physical attacks upon both the organized employees and those seeking to form labor organizations. They put labor on notice that the power of the Government of the United States will be used to crush the wage earners seeking to safeguard their rights and deprive them of their civil liberties. In short, the combination of these bills would snatch away the protection of the Clayton Act, the Norris–LaGuardia Act, and the Wagner Act. . . . If it is the purpose of the framers of this legislation to promote harmony between labor and management, they should take into consideration the fact that the majority of strikes of 1,000 or more persons which have occurred in this country since VJ-day came because wage earners, faced with a cost of living which has risen better than 50 percent since 1939, were seeking to obtain additional money with which to buy the necessities of life, to pay their rents, and to establish some small measure of economic security for their families. (Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 2/20/47, Hearings 1255, 1258)

The bills were sponsored by Republican senators Joseph H. Ball of Minnesota, Robert A. Taft of Ohio, and H. Alexander Smith of New Jersey. People’s Voice 3/1/47, Mitchell’s clippings file, MP. See also Mitchell, “The Negro and the Taft-Hartley Act,” in appendix 1, vol. IV.


[6] See the discussions of employment challenges posed by the reconversion period in FEPC Final Report 41–48; “Legislation Outlawing Racial Discrimination in Employment,” Lawyers Guild Review 5, no. 2 (March-April 1945), reprinted by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.: this monograph is a comprehensive review, with detailed footnotes, of existing legislation on the subject.


[7] See the headnote on Street and Local Railways in volume I and “Epilogue: Labor Problems Affecting Negroes,” 6/28/46, in volume II.


[8] Reinforcing the FEPC’s intrinsic support for a permanent existence, the agency at its close said: “Nothing short of congressional action to end employment discrimination can prevent the freezing of American workers into fixed groups, with ability and hard work of no account to those of the ‘wrong’ race or religion.” FEPC Final Report viii. The latest battle for a permanent FEPC was waged unsuccessfully in February 1946, when a minority of senators, using the filibuster, defeated efforts for the immediate consideration of S 101. Telegram from A. Philip Randolph and Alan Knight Chalmers, cochairmen of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC (NCPF), in NAACP II: A-266, DLC. Unlike the situation during his tenure at the FEPC, Mitchell was now working closely with the NCPF, which involved some seventy-five pro–civil rights organizations. See extensive collection of materials in NAACP II: A-266, DLC. See also Maslow, “FEPC—A Case History in Parliamentary Maneuver”; Maslow and Robinson, “Civil Rights Legislation and the Fight for Equality.”


[9] Mitchell was referring to Gloster B. Current, executive secretary of the Detroit NAACP branch, who also, in 1946, was appointed national director of branches. “Gloster B. Current,” Crisis 53 (September 1946): 279.


[10] See also, among others, 11/30/46 and 5/2/47.


[11] For the meeting with Schwellenbach that Mitchell arranged, see 9/30/46. At another meeting on December 11, 1946, on FEPC legislation, Mitchell again brought up the problems with the employment services, specifically a proposed NAACP lawsuit against the agency, which the secretary favored. Mitchell memorandum, 12/11/46, marked “confidential,” with no designated recipient but most certainly to Walter White, MP. See also Watson, Lion in the Lobby 156.


[12] See 8/31 and 9/30/46.


[13] See 7/31 and 10/31/46.


[14] See the headnote on the Telephone Industry in volume I.


[15] This quote was not found.


[16] That struggle was led by the wartime FEPC on the West Coast under the direction of Harry L. Kingman, director, Region XII. See the headnote on the Telephone Industry in volume I.


[17] See 1/25/47 for a comprehensive review of this problem.


[18] This report was based on complaints from Henry Conyers, civilian instructor for the army air force at Johnson Air Base. See 7/3/47.


[19] See Mitchell’s continuing efforts in this area at 2/1, 6/2, 7/3, 9/31, and 2/1/47, 3/1/48.


[20] See the introduction to volumes I and II for extended background on the importance of the struggle against discrimination by the railroads.


[21] Morgan v. Virginia 328 U.S. 373 (1946).


[22] Although Mitchell was unable to persuade the Justice Department to address these complaints, Walter White, as a result of a resurgence of such violence and lynching in the South, convinced Truman to create the President’s Committee on Civil Rights on December 5, 1946, to study such incidents. Furthermore, in his State of the Union message in January 1947, Truman expressed his concern for the “numerous attacks upon the constitutional rights of individual citizens as a result of racial and religious bigotry.” Watson, Lion in the Lobby 156–57; To Secure These Rights.