| Reviews / Comptes Rendus | Labour/Le Travail, 50

Reviews / Comptes Rendus

Bruce Nelson, Divided We Stand: American Workers and the Struggle for Black Equality (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001)

BRUCE NELSON'S LATEST BOOK examines labour relations among longshoremen in New York, Los Angeles, and New Orleans, and steelworkers in upstate New York and Ohio between 1850 and 1980. On these waterfronts and shop floors, Nelson finds intransigent employment hierarchies based on race and ethnicity. Struggles against discrimination have put cracks in the foundations of this inequality: work stoppages, emancipation from slavery, constitutional amendments, community building, legal challenges, and protest. Yet, by 1980, White industrial workers continued to enjoy greater access to skilled jobs that brought higher wages, benefits, and increased job stability, while Black workers were most often relegated to low-paying, unskilled occupations. In Divided We Stand Nelson asks: How did such labour relations develop among longshoremen and steelworkers? And, more importantly, why did they persist despite the New Deal, the rise of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), and the Civil Rights Movement?	1
Joining many of the New Labour historians, Nelson explores the role of both race and class in establishing worker identities and in perpetuating occupational hierarchies. Drawing on the scholarship of historians such as David Roediger and Robin Kelley, Nelson contends that the Irish "became white" by distinguishing themselves from those who were not White. As longshoremen and steelworkers, they cemented their White status by excluding Black and new immigrants from skilled occupations or positions in management. As a result, racial and ethnic employment hierarchies formed in which Mexicans and new immigrants occupied positions of liminality, gaining and losing material benefits in particular contexts. Black labourers did not enjoy occupational mobility. They were either excluded or relegated to subordinate positions in the workplace. Unions whitened the Irish as well. On the waterfront and shop floor, locals of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and the United Steel Workers of America wrote Whites-only clauses into their constitutions, levied inflated membership fees or relegated Blacks to separate and subordinate organizations. By emphasizing the active role of the White working class in this process Nelson distinguishes himself from those labour historians whom he claims overemphasize the role of capital in undermining cross-class alliances and perpetuating racial and ethnic hierarchies.	2
Particularly significant is Nelson's ability to uncover the machinations of racially and ethnically stratified workplaces. Using oral histories, newspapers, correspondence, and union records, Nelson provides substantial empirical research to support his claims about the centrality of working-class agency. First, Nelson recreates life on the docks. For longshoremen, the hardships of the waterfront barely outweighed the benefits. Long hours, low wages, and limited job security, ensured that considerable power rested in the hands of the employer. Early in the 1800s, The Longshoremen's United Benevolent Society, operating much like a trade union, encouraged cross-ethnic solidarity among dockworkers. Strikes in 1825 and 1828, involving all longshoremen, Black and White, challenged the control of management. Despite this early solidarity, by the 1870s the Irish enjoyed control of both the Benevolent Society and the most lucrative docks.	3
The competition between the ILA and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (ILWU) for control of America's waterfronts reveals how working-class agency shaped union viability. The American Federation of Labour (AFL)-affiliated ILA emerged in the late 19th century. It advocated "separate but equal unionism." (48) The communist-led ILWU arose in 1937 and challenged the ILA with its policy of racial egalitarianism. When the unions vied for control over certain waterfronts their policy on race often determined their success. In New Orleans in 1938, the inability of the ILWU to appeal to both Black workers and the White rank-and-file ensured the victory of a more conservative ILA. For Blacks in New Orleans, community cohesion offered greater solidarity than the class alliances promoted by the ILWU. Moreover, White longshoremen were not interested in the progressive policies of the ILWU. Until mechanization reduced the size of the labour force in the 1960s, unions like the ILWU proved ineffective in challenging white dominance.	4
In the highly stratified steel industry of upstate New York and Ohio, Nelson finds further evidence of the role of White working-class agency in perpetuating racial inequality. Archie Nelson, a steelworker from the Mahoning Valley, perhaps sums it up best when he states: "Every job I saw that was a decent job, it was held by whites. And all the greasy, nasty, cheap jobs was held by blacks." (xix) In a fascinating discussion of the open hearth at Brier Hill and Youngstown, Nelson underscores the "intractability of a shop-floor culture that was hostile to racial equality." (259) Work on the open hearth required training in blacksmithing and metallurgy. Proud of their physical prowess and skill, White workers vehemently protected the racial homogeneity of their workplace. The promotion of an Black steelworker often resulted in White workers loading the furnaces with enough dolomite to make the temperature unbearable.	5
Certainly, the emergence of the CIO in the mid-1930s with its integrationist policies offered great promise for racial equality in steel. Indeed, there were moments of solidarity that destabilized racial hierarchies: the Pittsburgh steel strike of 1937, the leadership of Theo Wallace, and the activism of Jim Davis and Oliver Montgomery. But, as Nelson demonstrates, White working-class agency prevailed in both the CIO and AFL-CIO eras. Irreconcilable tensions emerged between the objectives of union leadership and the White rank-and-file membership. Much like the ILWU, the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, a CIO affiliate, advocated "absolute racial equality in Union membership." (185) Unfortunately, even if Black steelworkers could "take the heat" (261) of the open hearth, the racial hierarchy of the steel industry ensured that White rank-and-file intransigence in the form of violence or wildcat strikes stalled the implementation of this laudable policy. Management had no interest in losing their skilled workers and, thus, would meet the demands of the strikers.	6
It is ironic that within Nelson's impressive analysis of the waterfront and the open hearth also lie my primary concerns with the book. Unfortunately, given the oral histories Nelson begins his book by describing, Divided We Stand does not consider the Black community. As Kim Phillip's Alabama North demonstrates, homes, churches, and neighborhoods provided essential networks for support and activism among Black workers. As unprecedented numbers of Black voters turned to the Democratic Party during the 1930s many also became staunch supporters of the CIO. The scholarship of Rick Halpern and Mike Honey emphasizes how Black industrial workers have successfully used the infrastructure of unions to challenge workplace inequality. Greater attention to the Black community might have explained uneven support for the CIO among Black industrial workers. Moreover, it might have underscored the sources of solidarity available to Blacks as they struggled to overcome White working-class agency.	7
Despite these criticisms, Divided We Stand is an important contribution to American working-class history. Complementing the scholarship of Eric Arnesen and Judith Stein, it advances our understanding of the role of White working-class agency in perpetuating occupational hierarchies. By shedding light on the tension between management and workers, union leadership and membership, Nelson demonstrates that meaningful change must happen through both union policy and the activities of workers on the shop floor.	8
Katrina Srigley University of Toronto

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.