1978 July 23

Introduction

Disposition of the Fund Gathered by the Baldanzi Forces During the 1950-1952 Internal Dispute
Scope and Content Note: Individuals, locals, and joint boards who supported Baldanzi had contributed to this fund. After the 1952 convention, the Baldanzi leadership (the Committee for a Democratic TWUA) determined that the money remaining in the fund be returned proportionately to all who had made a contribution. Forty-two hundred of the ten thousand dollars donated by the Philadelphia Joint Board was returned. Rieve questioned this and asked for the books, which he was given, but only after the distribution. No further action was taken by the Union.

Hueter's Position During the Internal Dispute Was Always Approved in Writing by All of the Locals - Including Pollock's and Wallace's - Within the Philadelphia Joint Board

The Secession Movement within the Philadelphia Joint Board
Scope and Content Note: Several shops in Rolla Wallace's Local 80 seceded. (Hueter refers to this as Local 83, but he means Local 80.) Immediately after the fight, the entire Joint Board had voted to secede, but this decision was overturned after a meeting with Rieve at which certain assurances and agreements were settled upon.

Philadelphia's Seat on the Executive Council
Scope and Content Note: Wallace was elected on the Administration slate in 1952. When he died, Albert Tompkins, the only other Philadelphia business agent who supported Rieve, replaced him. Hueter was elected in 1956 and re-elected at every convention until his retirement in 1972.

For about Four Years after His Return to the Executive Council, Hueter Was Treated Like an Outsider
Scope and Content Note: There were two reasons for this. First, he had sided with Baldanzi and at one point had advocated secession. (Hueter here contradicts his earlier statements regarding his role in secession - see Tape 5, Side 2, 21:00. The version given here is corroborated elsewhere - see Sol Stetin interview, Tape 6, Side 2, 01:40). Second, he was localized in Philadelphia, while most other vice presidents operated on a more national level. Hence, when he attended a Council meeting, he was far less prepared on the issues than were other Council members.

The Beginnings of the 1962-1964 Internal Dispute
Note: Throughout his discussion of this fight, Hueter usually refers to the two factions as the “Majority” and the “Minority.” in order to be consistent with other interviews in the TWUA Project, this abstract uses the terms “Majority” and “Administration” to identify the two factions.

Scope and Content Note: Hueter remained an outsider on the Executive Council until 1960, when he began to realize that something was happening between members of the Executive Council and the officers of the Union. He questioned Council members about why they were taking positions on certain issues that were contrary to the wishes of the officers.

By 1962, There Was Almost an Open Fight in Every Executive Council Meeting
Scope and Content Note: Hueter was still uncertain why this was happening.

Finally One Council Meeting Deteriorated Badly Enough for Pollock to Call a Recess
Scope and Content Note: Each faction went into a different office. Hueter, “since [he] didn't have any representation in either side,” sat in the hall until Bill DuChessi invited him into the caucus of Pollock supporters.

It Appeared to Hueter That the Circumstances Surrounding This Dispute Were Very Similar to Those of the 1952 Dispute
Scope and Content Note: A particular group on the Executive Council felt first, they could no longer work with one of the officers of the Union - in this case Pollock; and second, they were interested in advancing their own ambitions within TWUA.

For Several Months Hueter Attempted, Unsuccessfully, to Reason with Both Sides in the Dispute
Scope and Content Note: He argued that no matter who won, the Union would suffer.

Hueter Sided with the Administration
Scope and Content Note: Although Pollock had his faults, he was a good President and should not have been removed just because someone else wanted to advance.

One of the Issues Which Contributed to the Split Was the Discharge of Ben Wyle, TWUA General Counsel
Scope and Content Note: Wyle was actively supporting the Majority; Pollock discharged him; and the Majority attempted, unsuccessfully, to override Pollock's decision.

More on the Beginnings of the 1962-1964 Internal Dispute
Scope and Content Note: Until 1960, the Executive Council consistently was in agreement with the recommendations made by the officers. However, in 1960, certain members of the Council began opposing the officers' recommendations; and this opposition continued to grow until the fight broke into the open. The vote in the Council was consistently 12-10.

The Twelve Vice Presidents Constituting the Majority All Had Basically the Same Motives
Scope and Content Note: They were all dissatisfied with the quality of Pollock's leadership. A few were interested in personal advancement; and others resented the way Pollock treated them. Hueter argued with the Majority that, at best, only two of them would be able to advance; but the feelings against Pollock were so strong that this argument could not sway any of the Majority.

Another Issue Contributing to the Split Was Wage Increases for Directors
Scope and Content Note: Pollock did not believe in equal pay for equal work, and, often, directors with similar responsibilities would be paid different salaries.

The New England Clique Supported the Majority
Scope and Content Note: Many joint board managers and staff from New England sided with the Majority. Ultimately, the New England leaders felt the entire New England area would support their position, but that did not happen.

Introduction

New Englander John Chupka Did Not Join the New England Clique in Its Opposition to Pollock
Scope and Content Note: The New Englanders thought that if they were united, Chupka would join with them. Because of statements Chupka had made about his difficulties with Pollock, the Majority assumed he would support their position. “Chupka was a man who wasn't quick making a decision”; when he did make his decision to back the Administration, it was a severe blow to the Majority.

The Administration Established a Committee of Three to Plan Strategy
Scope and Content Note: It consisted of Pollock, Chupka, and Hueter. This surprised Hueter because he “was only a joint board manager.” They would meet prior to Council meetings to decide the positions to be taken by the Administration faction.

Rieve's Role in the 1964 Fight
Scope and Content Note: At first it was only a rumor that Rieve was becoming involved; but it soon became evident, from certain statements made by Majority members of the Executive Council, that he was taking a position in favor of the Majority. The Administration attempted to nullify Rieve's position by threatening to revoke his salary if he came to the 1964 convention and spoke on behalf of the Majority. Rieve was angered by the Administration's plan; and thereafter there was no question that he would be attending the convention and voicing his opinion. At that point, he was trying to protect himself.

Rieve's Speech at the 1964 Convention
Scope and Content Note: Hueter was convinced that no action would be taken against Rieve if he did not speak for the Majority. “...[T]he speech he made at that convention was definitely wrong from the standpoint of the future of the Union”; but Rieve was so angry with Pollock over the proposed income reduction, he no longer cared about the Majority; it had become a question of a personal attack on him. The resolution to end Rieve's salary and place him on pension was introduced by the Administration, and it passed. Hueter tried to get Rieve to play the role of peacemaker, but he would have no part of that.

More on Rieve's Role in the 1964 Fight
Scope and Content Note: Certain statements the Majority let slip, concerning policy matters that only Rieve would have known anything about, indicated that he was advising them.

The Local 1790 Issue
Scope and Content Note: Hueter was not close to this situation. Like most of the Administration group, he merely went along with Jack Rubenstein's recommendations.

Federation of Textile Representatives (FTR) During the Fight
Scope and Content Note: There was never any indication that the formation of this internal union of organizers in 1962 had anything to do with the political fight. There was no organized attempt by the FTR to take one side or the other.

1962 Turnover in Executive Council Members
Scope and Content Note: There were no political overtones; the Executive Council met and agreed on who should be slated to replace the four who resigned.

It Became Very Difficult for the Administration to Slate Twelve Replacements for the Executive Council Before the 1964 Convention
Scope and Content Note: It was difficult from the standpoint of which ones were most able. Also, there were a number of possible choices, but only twelve positions available, so some were bound to be offended; and the Administration did not wish to lose any of its supporters. There was quite a battle within the Administration group over the slating of these twelve. One fellow insisted on having two people from his jurisdiction slated and walked out when the others refused to agree to this. Hueter spoke with him for an hour and finally got him to agree to go along with the decision of the others.

In Both the 1950-1952 Internal Dispute and the 1962-1964 Internal Dispute, There Were High-Level Informants on Both Sides
Scope and Content Note: Both sides knew in both fights exactly what the opposing faction was going to do.

If the Majority Had Had the Support of the Membership of the Areas They Represented, They Would Have Won in the 1964 Convention

Why the Majority Opposed Calling a Special Convention to Settle the Internal Dispute
Scope and Content Note: The Majority was not yet ready and felt that more time would solidify their position with the membership. However, the Administration used this time to secure its own position, charging that the Majority was preventing the Union's advancement.

The 1964 Convention
Scope and Content Note: On the first morning, the Majority forces were so noisy during demonstrations that delegates began demanding that the galleries be kept quiet.

Introduction

More on the 1964 Convention
Scope and Content Note: The Majority forces that were being so rowdy were mainly from Joseph J. (Johnny) Miraglia's Local 1790. They were deliberately attempting to disrupt the convention, and delegates began resenting this attempt. Before the start of the convention, the Administration forces were still uncertain of victory - they had counted votes in advance, and the tally was almost even - but as that first day progressed, it became more and more evident that the Administration could win. The Majority took a negative, opposition tact, while the Administration took a positive approach, explaining as they went along their course of action. This negativism, plus the rowdiness of the Local 1790 people, turned many delegates to the Administration.

More on the Special Convention
Scope and Content Note: Although the idea of a special convention was a “maneuver” on the part of the Administration, they were willing to follow through with it. However, they were fairly certain that the Majority was not ready at that point.

Until Their Nomination at the Convention, the Administration Did Not Know Who from the Majority Would Be Running for the Major Offices of the Union
Scope and Content Note: The Administration was aware of a certain amount of dissension among the Majority as to who would run. They were “not necessarily” surprised that Wesley Cook and William Belanger were nominated.

Hueter Does Not Believe That the Reason Cook and Belanger Were Slated for the Major Offices Was Because the Majority Knew They Could Not Win
Scope and Content Note: Instead, he believes “that up until the first day of the convention, they were convinced that they would win the convention.”

Cook and Belanger as Potential Officers of the Union
Scope and Content Note: Though each were strong individuals, they worked well together in the Executive Council.

Speculation Would Have It That Either Industry or Regional Directors Would Be Most Apt to Run for the Major Offices
Scope and Content Note: People at this level would have ambitions that joint board managers and people at lower levels would not entertain.

Committee Assignments at the 1964 Convention
Scope and Content Note: These assignments were discussed by the entire Executive Council, and the attempt was made to balance them so that there would be no charges made against the Administration of trying to control committees. People from each faction, plus neutral people, were put on each committee. The Administration saw to it that some of these “neutral” people were leaning toward the Administration. In the 1952 fight, Rieve and his supporters had stacked the committees heavily in their own favor.

The 1964 Convention Was Much More Democratic Than the 1952 Convention
Scope and Content Note: The Administration tried to be democratic in its positions, thereby robbing the Majority of an issue. “All they could do was oppose,” and this negativism had an effect on the delegates.

Why the TWUA Trustees Sided with the Majority
Scope and Content Note: One of the three trustees, Mary Vaz, was from New England, was very involved with that group, and owed her job to Majority leaders. (Hueter says that Mary Vaz was also a trustee in the 1952 fight, but she was not. In 1952 Elizabeth Nord was the woman trustee, and she was the only trustee that year to support the Rieve side.) Another was William Ewing, who was from the Synthetic-Yarn Division of western Pennsylvania, and who, therefore, was probably under Cook's influence.

The TWUA Constitution Forbids the Use of Union Funds for Internal Disputes
Scope and Content Note: The Administration solicited funds from individuals, locals, and joint boards which backed the Administration position. Careful records were kept; and, after the 1964 convention, the remaining funds were returned to the contributors on a proportionate basis.

No Effort Was Made to Check the Source of Funds Used by the Majority
Scope and Content Note: This may have been because of the Landrum-Griffin Act.

From a Personal Standpoint, the 1952 Fight Was Much More Bitter Than the 1964 Fight
Scope and Content Note: The 1964 fight, however, was more detrimental to the Union because of the loss of capable Union leaders.

It Is Doubtful That Either Cook or Belanger Could Have Remained within TWUA after the 1964 Internal Dispute
Scope and Content Note: Since the opposition was based on such a wide variety of issues, it would have been extremely difficult for them to accept these things overnight. If they had remained in TWUA, the dispute would have continued until another open break developed.

It Was Suggested to Baldanzi That He Could Remain with the Union after His Defeat in 1952
Scope and Content Note: However, those making this suggestion knew that Baldanzi would not accept; that he simply could no longer have worked with Rieve.

Because the Majority Did Not Have the Support of the Membership, There Was No Question of a Secession Movement after the 1964 Convention
Scope and Content Note: The Administration did not realize the Majority had so little membership support until the convention had actually begun.

The Fate of the Losers in 1964
Scope and Content Note: Hueter feels that all of the Majority members were embarrassed by the positions they had taken and knew they could not work in harmony with the winners. So they looked for a way out. Many took retirement. There was no real discussion about getting rid of Majority leaders who did not leave of their own volition. The fight was so bitter both sides assumed that defeat would mean they were through.

Introduction

More on William Belanger and Wesley Cook
Scope and Content Note: Belanger had another job lined up which paid more than he had been making as a division director; and Cook was ready to leave the Union anyway.

Harold Daoust Became New England Director after Belanger Left TWUA
Scope and Content Note: Even before the 1964 internal dispute, Daoust had wished to return from Canada. Since he was from New England, the decision to make him Director in that area, where he was well known, was an appropriate one.

Bill Tullar
Scope and Content Note: Tullar was Midwest Director. He resigned from the Union in 1966 because of illness, though he had been ill prior to his retirement and took another job with the government after his retirement.

Aftermath of the 1964 Internal Dispute
Scope and Content Note: Between the time of the 1964 fight and Hueter's retirement in 1972, TWUA did not progress as much as it would have liked, especially in the area of organizing. This was due to the fact that times were not good, and the Executive Council was composed of a number of newer, inexperienced members.

The Difficulties of Being a TWUA Organizer
Scope and Content Note: TWUA usually sent organizers outside their native areas, perhaps assuming that they would be more productive away from home. Often they would be separated from their families for long periods. Examples of the demeaning things organizers had to put up with, including an anecdote about women at a Philadelphia plant pouring water on Hueter and other organizers. Also, there was always the pressure to produce in order to move up or even to avoid being replaced.

One of TWUA'S Long-Time Problems Was the Lack of Advancement Opportunities
Scope and Content Note: The lack of advancement possibilities within TWUA was the main reason why the Union experienced two internal fights. No one can remain an organizer for thirty years. Hueter saw this problem and, as Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee in the early 1970s, he recommended retirement of officers and employees at age 65 in order to open up advancement opportunities for younger people. The membership overwhelmingly supported this change.

Imbalance on the Executive Council
Scope and Content Note: This was one of the reasons the 1970 convention mandated the formation of a committee to review the constitution. Hueter was named to the committee and became its chairman. Hueter thought the original theory in TWUA was to have a Council with more or less equal representation from industry directors, regional directors, joint boards, and locals. At first it worked this way, but pressure came from high-level directors who were not on the Council, and, by the 1970s, the Council began to become imbalanced, particularly geographically. Furthermore, by the time Hueter retired, there was no longer a balance of half the vice presidents being paid by the International and half locally. A problem involved in this was that often, qualified people were kept off the Council in order to maintain balance.

Hueter and His Constitutional Review Committee Visited Different Areas of the Country to Get the Views and Suggestions of the Membership
Scope and Content Note: The meetings were not always well attended because of the distance that would often have to be travelled to attend. There was, however, always a good representation of locals at the meetings. People at the meetings asked good questions and were generally satisfied that the Committee was sincerely trying to improve the organization.

The Regional Representation Recommendation Was Rejected by the Executive Council

Hueter and His Committee Analyzed the Results of Their Area Tours and Reported to the Executive Council
Scope and Content Note: The Council then discussed each suggestion and either supported or rejected it, with the supported suggestions being recommended to the convention.

More on Compulsory Retirement at Age 65
Scope and Content Note: Hueter was very strongly in favor of this, even though he would be affected by it at the next convention. Jack Rubenstein, however, strongly opposed it and felt that “people were after him personally.” He failed to realize the importance of advancing people within the organization.

The Administration Was Not Too Happy with the Change That Permitted Delegates to Vote for Only Fifteen Vice Presidents to Fill the Twenty Executive Council Seats
Scope and Content Note: This was a compromise because there was so much opposition to the past practice of forcing delegates to vote for twenty vice presidents. The administration continued to present slates of twenty.

In 1972, Pennsylvania Was Not Represented at Either the Woolen-Worsted Conference or the Northern Cotton-Rayon Conference

Introduction

The Philadelphia Joint Board Was Always Represented at the Woolen-Worsted Conferences; Hueter Cannot Speak for the Rest of Pennsylvania
Scope and Content Note: Hueter, as Manager, was a member of the Advisory Council of the Woolen-Worsted Division of the Union, even after the American Woolen Company, the pattern setter, had gone out of business.

Hueter Attended Almost All Cotton Division Meetings until Philadelphia No Longer Had Any Basic Cotton Industry Left
Scope and Content Note: Then the plush and upholstery cotton locals became a section within the Cotton Division and met separately.

J.P. Stevens
Scope and Content Note: The decision was unanimous in the Executive Council to target Stevens, even though it came in the midst of the 1964 internal dispute. Selection of such targets was rarely subject to politicking. The Union decided to concentrate on a large chain of the industry; the idea being that if they were successful, there would be a real impact on the industry. Up until that time, TWUA had attempted to organize smaller units of the industry with no apparent effect.

Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, J.P. Stevens Mills
Scope and Content Note: In 1974, after an election had been won by the Union, Hueter offered his assistance in the subsequent negotiations, with the understanding that he not become involved for too long a period of time. However, in his first and only meeting with the company, it was immediately “obvious that the company had no intention of coming to any agreement on anything,” so Hueter withdrew. Also, Hueter felt he would have to hold many meetings with the local people to get a feeling for their desires. All of this would have amounted to a full-time job in Roanoke Rapids, which was a commitment he could not make.

Hueter's Opinion of Southern Workers
Scope and Content Note: He had never negotiated for southern workers, but he did not feel they were any different in their negotiating desires. All workers ask for the sky but are willing to settle for less, and it takes a lot of meeting with groups and individuals to determine what they will settle for.

The Decline of the Textile Industry in Philadelphia
Scope and Content Note: The Joint Board at its peak had about 12,000 members, and today it is down to about 2,000-3,000. The majority of textile workers in Philadelphia are still organized. Many factors contributed to this decline. The decline in textile employees has been general; indeed, in Philadelphia, more non-union shops have failed than union shops. Family-owned companies, which dominated the industry in Philadelphia, closed down because the children of the original owners neither needed nor cared to continue running the business. There was actually very little migration. Many mills had antiquated machinery, and rather than invest the money necessary to update this machinery, the company chose to close down. Imports were a factor. Also, in plants where the employer was willing to install new machinery, this often meant a reduction in the work force of as much as 50 percent, with the alternative being plant liquidation.

Collins and Aikman's Association with the Union over the Years
Scope and Content Note: The company continued to match wages and conditions of union shops and eventually set up its own company union. This lasted until the company moved South, leaving its former employees behind. These people then asked the Philadelphia Joint Board for assistance in locating work, and the Joint Board complied. The company continued its policy of matching union benefits in the South. The Union signed up a majority there, but the company refused to negotiate a contract; the Union eventually lost its majority.

Fringe Benefits in Philadelphia
Scope and Content Note: Paid holidays were originally bargained in lieu of part of a wage increase. In most cases, Philadelphia was a pioneer in fringe benefits in the textile industry. One advantage was that the Joint Board represented nine different branches of the industry but insisted on getting the same benefits for the weaker divisions as for the strong. Other areas could then use Philadelphia as an example to match these benefits in the weaker branches of the industry.

In the Early Going It Was Difficult to Get Information on Contracts in Other Parts of the Country
Scope and Content Note: The Research Department eventually was able to overcome the hesitancy of local unions to reveal the conditions of their contracts. Wage information then became readily available, but work load information remained difficult to obtain. This was due in part to the variety of machines and conditions in the various mills. Because it was not a wealthy industry, the Union never thought it could obtain uniform working conditions throughout the industry.

Pension Benefits in the Philadelphia Joint Board
Scope and Content Note: Pensions were not achieved until toward the end of Hueter's tenure as Joint Board Manager. Uniformity of plans was never achieved.

Imports Were the Main Factor in the Decline of the Textile Industry in Philadelphia
Scope and Content Note: Imports have wiped out the yarn spinning branch of the industry.