July 22, 1977 Session

Introduction

Beginnings of the Baldanzi-Rieve Split within the TWUA
Scope and Content Note: Hueter unaware of any differences prior to his joining Executive Council in 1948. Not until 1949 did differences become apparent to Hueter; by 1950 sides were drawn in Executive Council. Hueter supported Baldanzi. Claims Baldanzi supporters forced into position to oppose many issues because the other side arranged to give political implications to the issues.

Hueter's Interpretation of the Causes for Split
Scope and Content Note: When Hosiery Federation left TWUA, Rieve took membership in a New England local and made this his base of support; this biased him in favor of the New England representatives. New England representatives on Executive Council had prior knowledge of issues up for discussion at Council meetings; Rieve always had their support in advance. New Englanders then used influence over Rieve to advance their own political ambitions, which meant opening up Baldanzi's position for a New Englander. These plans may have been laid without Rieve's knowledge at first.

Main Figure in New England Group
Scope and Content Note: Most ambitious and forceful was Mariano Bishop; had support of New Englanders and acquired support of others who were ambitious.

Introduction

Why Hueter Chose to Side with Baldanzi
Scope and Content Note: Rieve unable to give satisfactory explanation of why Baldanzi should be eliminated.

Hueter's Report to Philadelphia Joint Board on His Meeting with Rieve
Scope and Content Note: Almost unanimous support for Hueter's position in siding with Baldanzi; some objections came from Carpet Division (Local 80), through the influence of Rolla Wallace.

Issues That Caused the Split
Scope and Content Note: Democracy (Rieve assumed more authority than Baldanzi people thought was constitutionally legitimate and Executive Council majority ruled the Union), geography (New England received unequal share of International Union services and financial help), personalities.

Degree of Ambition Often Determined Which Side People Chose

As 1950 Convention Approached Rieve Gave More and More Authority to His Supporters
Scope and Content Note: Rieve spoke of his possible retirement.

Reasons for Failure to Oust Baldanzi at 1950 Convention
Note: Though Hueter refers to this as the 1952 convention, it was the 1950 convention.

Scope and Content Note: Rieve left political preparations pretty much to his followers, and they were not up to the task. Attempt to make Baldanzi's ambition for the presidency the main issue was a strategic mistake. Many delegates switched allegiance to Baldanzi because he did not exhibit this ambition.

Following 1950 Convention - Rieve Group
Scope and Content Note: Situation deteriorated; Baldanzi given no assignments. Rieve again assumed leadership role and began planning for next convention. Pro-Rieve shops in one local given separate charters to increase delegate strength; staffers given delegate proxies of locals that never sent delegates.

Following 1950 Convention - Baldanzi Group
Scope and Content Note: Hueter confined to Philadelphia area whereas previously he had done organizing, etc. in a much broader area. Sam Baron discharged as Canadian Director; Charles Serraino confined to New Jersey. Baldanzi given no important assignments. Union did nothing to heal the wounds; made no progress for the members. Everybody politicking.

Situation Prior to 1952 Convention
Scope and Content Note: With Rieve's position strengthened and with Baldanzi being restricted, positions of strength reversed from that of 1950 convention. Both sides meeting and developing propaganda, pamphlets being distributed, letters going out.

Decision Reached that Baldanzi Should Run for President
Scope and Content Note: Belief by Baldanzi group that they were committed, there was no turning back, and therefore he should run with a complete slate. Hueter did not agree, but was outvoted. Propaganda changed when this decision made - Baldanzi group went on the attack.

1952 Convention
Scope and Content Note: Baldanzi side miscalculated Rieve's ability to create delegate strength; went into convention expecting defeat.

Anecdote Concerning Voting at 1952 Convention - Politicking Right Up to the Voting Booths

Following 1952 Convention
Scope and Content Note: Hueter holds that Baldanzi and most of his followers did not secede, but were driven from the Union.

Baldanzi, after Leaving TWUA
Scope and Content Note: Helped organize New York City taxi drivers; ultimately elected president of UTW.

Charles Hughes
Scope and Content Note: Elected to Executive Council in 1950 as independent; broke the slate. Chose to support Baldanzi.

Introduction

Charles Hughes (Continued)
Scope and Content Note: As representative of Carpet Division, decided to organize those locals on Baldanzi's behalf. (Rolla Wallace's Local 80 split over this issue.) Simultaneously Hughes was politicking to make himself Carpet Director. Turned out Hughes playing both sides, as evidenced by his post-convention nomination by Rieve to be Carpet Director. Hughes had made a deal with Bishop. Hughes unacceptable to Carpet Division; job with State of New York obtained for him as consolation.

Subsequent Careers of Baldanzi Supporters - Baron, Serraino, Lew Conn

Why Hueter Ran for Executive Vice President
Scope and Content Note: Had previously promised Pollock he'd never run for any office against him. Accepted Executive Vice President candidacy only with approval of Philadelphia Joint Board.

Hueter the Only Leader from Baldanzi Group Who Continued Working for TWUA
Scope and Content Note: Returned to Philadelphia as Joint Board Manager. Rolla Wallace took Hueter's place on Executive Council, which he held until his death.

Philadelphia Joint Board Seat on Executive Council
Scope and Content Note: Not immediately filled after Wallace's death (August 1952); difficulty in finding an acceptable replacement - only remaining Rieve supporter there was older and unreliable; this man was finally elected in 1954.

With 1956 Convention, Philadelphia Business Agents Insist that Manager of Philadelphia Joint Board Be Returned to Executive Council
Scope and Content Note: Much dissatisfaction with representation. Rieve did not object, but said it must be cleared with incoming president - William Pollock. Pollock attempted to attach conditions to his support for Hueter, but ultimately accepted him without strings.

Hueter Received Full Cooperation of Executive Council Upon His Return as Vice President

Hueter's Relationship with Pollock Remained Cool

Hueter Did Not Recommend Secession to Joint Board Following 1952 Convention
Note: See Tape 6, Side 1, 10:30, where Hueter appears to contradict this discussion.

Scope and Content Note: Wrote letter to UTW stating under what conditions Philadelphia Joint Board would join that organization - purposely listed demands that would not be acceptable to UTW. Did not want to split the Union.

Hueter Questioned about Secession by Rieve
Scope and Content Note: Rieve suggested Hueter draw up list of requirements for assurances of no repercussions against Joint Board. Committee of Executive Council formed to discuss items on the list. (Pollock one of eight on this Committee.) Unanimous approval of all 18 items. One additional item added at Rieve's suggestion: Dropping of charges against Hueter for advocating secession. (Committee accepted dropping the charges against Hueter without much discussion. One of the 18 items was to use Charles Weinstein as an arbitrator to settle differences between Philadelphia Joint Board and the International; such arbitration was never needed.)