2- ‘ ' . n n .n I - v u .. _ _ 3. "'1 "wwn-‘mu: .umah.»wmsw ;' — .. . l : .7' n "V v 3 iv 3 3 E fh;:1‘._;§;..:: a ”a m‘; :3 § 7-:§[- 32‘s.: 1 E: a _.-'>\1.. —,:£ .. 1‘ = 9. t f A ":3 .o-‘I vq<>- J" 2 131 C55. _“ C.“ 1 L ‘ Jr - ‘v' , . ‘ a; .- \r- 5-“: . '- ‘ ‘ Ao‘d ‘ O. L }.9~-\_.Lf, . ' ‘ . 1) “7‘ ( 9 - -l i J ' U f v, _ ’ - v , h 1 ' I. ‘ 13;. .. . .3; ‘ 13:1 ‘- r." ;:\“K"L" “2.55.2: Hi. | . 9‘. 4 ,C ’2 . £52215; .3. - , . {if :9. 3“ . x.‘r:._;- 1’ . «.15.: 3:1 .351}. rm- -' -.- -, : ;.._..._,....- ., yf'flwq 4:71."? '2'“. J‘ér'ii: ”.1; 3771;: “r; n: J“ [‘W ""5"“. 4912?...“ 3". 3.... .- .. 122235 at: bwurfi: ‘._”‘ .31- f ‘... Will/11111011!!!”Ill/l!WHIINIII/WW Ill/HI! 3 1293 10382 5240 fl 1 RETURNING MATERIALS: lV153‘_J Place in book drop to IJBRARJES remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES will be charged if book is We; returned after the date stamped beIow. ILI‘ HIST ‘) 3.”... ST‘JQY Ob O-{C:¢LL.I;JJ .4.‘xfin3{' I uiLZlA/d. .14- ICM Il‘i COL..§.‘-ULJI;'Y CILJLT 24.1) 31334311. ILC’ ‘I le‘Cfi‘ _ I -1 .. , .,- , fur-mi “r" ‘ 11' .LL: Int.“ J_L.LI J , i.-_L‘./l-..L‘Jr:.;i by Duane H. Beck 3 T's-)m 7firfi n 7‘ as: '“l A 1 -u. .U. .1441 OK. gubmitted to the Department of Social Jerk Liehigea dtete College in Eartia felfiIlment of the Requirements for the Degree of ‘I ‘u a: 1-33 7'1 . ‘ ’ ."1 I "' “fr“ I" 7.;- AI-J-s \r‘ .L|._L.)L OJ: #3 LV .L-IL_4‘_.‘ ll U-{l\ Q) ‘< H \( ) \J '1 \fl // Approved: // ./7*£6E24C/ /é22;%L. \)J‘:CLLC..Q\II, -‘LerekaLl vOmlulCtb’G ‘3 Meemix ham». J‘CLK 0L JG 0C).). tILICl.t 7145533 ‘ M519} R” ‘ Ll“ 1,. ./ //,/ '1 ’ 1/ LT / "‘7‘ 1" "T 3‘“ -' “'77.“ [LuluuuuuiJU .4.._i_)....LxD In acknowledging the generous aid to me from many sources, I wish to express deep appreciation to the faculty of the hichigan State College Department of Social Jork and especially Dr. Ernest B. Harper, Professor Bernard Loss, and Jr. hanfred Lillicfors for their help as members of my advisory committee for this study. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the staff of the United Community Chest and its Executive Director, hr. Richard C. Hicks. To Mssrs. Thomas Borst and Oscar Sade, members of the Labor Education Department of the Community Chest, I am indebted for their interest and effort which made possible the writer's many relation- Ships with members of organized labor. I give my gratitude to my wife who labored over the manuscript with me. Uithout her inspiration and en- couragement the study could not have been made. Finally I wish to express my appreciation to Mrs. Frances Korkoske who typed the manuscript and to the many other persons who were interviewed and consulted in the course of making the study. ii m . .LALA—JJ—Ju—J w- m-\,"1\‘ rfii‘. 1"" r‘ L. L L—LV bJLLKJII LQI‘ZLOLCLOGY P‘f‘ , f m"_' :1 £11.: DI'VIII CF I‘ll... .rfr.“ --' fin’f'" Kr J—‘ULA$‘AI-A VLL¢\ ..‘I .L 1“ "TI"- f‘ ‘7. VK/VLvV LJ IV. ‘t'Ll; IL;:A‘ALYSIS OF GAGA-ilk I Z431) V. 5"; I “I; “.LAiY I‘L;:D VUL‘JLJUQ-L "1: ‘1 AI I :JIIU VI‘JQ o o o DIQnIOala‘ADHY . . . CF T L'LJOI‘I Iii CCUQCIL 4".C’ll JI"‘l ’ hi .4 "1 4p.-.) v—w- 1-..: lIIUK/JDR) -,«\ 'rr‘ LL‘D n u 0;. “l"flr‘i 11.11440 0 O . . . O C . . C C O I O O O C O O . . Q . . C . . U O O . O . C O O V 3"? turns ’1‘ 'u 1 «.11 vol: luUL\:i:.L.[ vii .JL) K) ' W. 3: fi" CC.::.-\.)I..L IIY L)- .JIL JICIJQ . . O O O O O O . fin JK.«1..;-J. Jl: III iii CF Ii? "JO '7' TJ’ 1' ‘1‘.“T J -4‘tI‘JII . ‘.._ Gill-+431. gnu) i.) H. iv ll T ' '31 M ble 1. Participating Agencies and Amount of honey Received by nacn from the First Community Jelfare Fund Campaign of Lansing, Kicnigan, l9l9 . . . . . . . . . Budget Request to and Allocations from Lansing Comnunity Ielfare Fund for Ingham County Council of Social Agencies, 1957 to 1940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professional, Occugational, and Institutional Classifications of Board of Directors, Greater Lansing Community Cnest, march, 1949 . . . . . . Dates of Initial Troughs, Peaks, and Terminal Troughs of Business Cycles in the United States, April, 1919, to Lay, 195' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv 15 19 m (I) 45 Chapter I INTRODUCTION This project undertakes to study the process of involvement of organized labor in the activities of the United Community Chest of Ingham County and the Community Services Council from the inception of the Chest in 1919 to the present day. It is an historical account of the development of trade union1 participation with a special emphasis on the forces which brought labor and the Chest and Council into a cooperative effort in pro- moting and supporting community health, welfare, group work, and recreation services. This project does not presume to evaluate the program and operations of the Chest and Council along the historical dimension, but rather attempts to isolate some of the forces which were operative in bringing organized labor and the organized social welfare services into cooperative effort. The idea for a study of this nature came as a result of the writer's many relationships established with members of trade unions during the 1955 Red Feather Fund Campaign during which time the writer served as a Chest 1For the purposes of this paper, the terms "trade union" and "organized labor" are used synonomously. staff assistant to the Chairman and Co-chairman of the Building Trades Section of the Labor and Industry Division. The elected officials of the trade union locals and central bodies gave freely of their time in the planning stages of the Red Feather Campaign as well as during the fund campaign itself. The extent to which organized labor participated in the campaign was substantial. Trade union representatives have stated that organized labor regards federated fund raising for health, welfare, group work, and recreation services as part of its com- munity responsibility. An examination of the records indicates that organized labor has not always taken this view. There was a time when the local trade unions refused to support the Com- munity Chest and Council and suggested that its members not contribute to the campaigns. This attitude has changed. Since 1940 organized labor has played an active role in these community ventures. Tne participation of organized labor in the Community Chest and Council does not end with the raising of funds. Labor's representatives serve on the boards of directors of the Community Chest, the Community Services Council, and the agencies which are members of the Community Chest. Organized labor's representatives also participate in the important budgeting process of the Community Chest and serve on many committees which do the planning for community services. Why did organized labor at one time refuse to participate in activities of the Community Chest and Council? What factors influenced the change in attitude of organized labor in this area of activity? What are the implications of labor's present attitude for the Community Chest, the Community Services Council, the member health, welfare, group work, and recreation agencies, and for labor unions as well? No previous studies concerned with this project's area of interest were found. There are no guideposts to follow and no established criteria which can be used. In a sense, this study is a general exploration which may contribute toward learning more about community chests and councils and their relationships with organized labor by reconstructing the sequence of events which describe this development in Ingham County and by pointing toward some of the major influences which seem to have affected the process. Chapter II METHODOLOGY A difficult task in making the study was to see events in their proper perspective. The records of the Community Chest and Council pointed out the events as they occurred. The interviews provided the background material surrounding the events. The observations and unstructured conversations identified current thinking about organized labor's involvement in these community activities. By combining the information obtained through these sources it was possible to place events in proper juxtaposition. A discussion of the methods employed in making the study follows: A. Interviews The persons interviewed for the purpose of this study were selected because of their knowledge of specific eras of history of the Community Chest and Council and of local labor organization. The list of persons was compiled from the records of the Chest and Council, from suggestions made by the Chest1 staff, and from the executive director of the Community Chest. 1For the purposes of this study, the term "Chest" will mean the United Community Chest of Ingham County. No schedule was used in the interviews because different information was sought from different persons. The time span1 of the Lansing Chest operation, 1919 to 1955, was divided into four periods: 1919 to 1927, 1928 to 1940, 1941 to 1945, and 1946 to 1955. Most persons interviewed had knowledge of only one or two of these periods. The number of interviews which could be made was limited by the time available for the study. The Chest labor2 staff was helpful in indicating labor leaders who had been or were currently active in community services. Each of the persons interviewed was informed of the purposes of the study. The interviews were conducted in the homes and offices of those interviewed and consumed from one-half to two hours each. Questions were specif- ically designed to elicit specific information from each. Sometimes Chest and Council records were used during the interview to stimulate the memory of the interviewee about certain events. The utmost COOperation was received 1The Community Chest was founded in 1919; the Community Services Council began operation officially in 1927. 2Chest labor staff refers to the two members of organized labor, Mr. Oscar Wade from the C.I.O. and Mr. Thomas Borst from the A.F. of L., who are developing the Community Chest education and referral program for members of organized labor. 03 from each of the interviewees. A limitation which the writer faced was that some of the persons who were on the interview list were not available. There were several reasons: sickness, death, extended vacations, and residence in another community. In only one instance was there a refusal to be interviewed. Helpful information came out of unstructured, casual conversations. The relationships established by the writer during his participation in the Red Feather Campaign facilitated communication of information not possible in formal interviewing. Because of these re- lationships it was possible to meet many labor members in local union halls and over coffee where real feelings came out in discussions. Much of the current thinking of members of organized labor was obtained in these gatherings. B. Observations The Community Chest labor staff arranged for the writer's attendance at meetings of union locals and central labor bodies, This experience provided valuable opportunities to learn more about organized labor and its objectives. Without this understanding it would not have been possible to write this paper. k5 C. Documentary Material The records containing minutes of board and committee meetings, letters and other documents of the Community Chest and Council, were made available and are a signi- ficant source of the data of this study. These records were read and pertinent material was extracted. Since the records of the early years were not complete, it was necessary to devote more time than anticipated to sorting out unclassified material in order to get a clear picture of the early years of Community Chest operation. The early records of the War Fund of World War I were missing. A fire on December 28, 1920% destroyed the office of the Community Welfare Fund, Inc., as the Com- munity Chest was then called, and with it all the records except those in the hands of Mr. Edwin O. Izant, Secretary of the Fund. The later records were more complete. In some instances the discussion which occurred before action on a proposal was taken was recorded, and there was revealed, therefore, not only an end result but also some of the process at the time a decision was made. The board minutes of several Chest member agencies were made available when it was necessary to obtain lFrom the Board of Directors Book of the Michigan Childrens Aid Society, Lansing, Michigan. information about labor participation in the agencies. The Joint Labor Participation Department of the Community Chests and Councils of America, Inc., sent along many pamphlets disclosing the extent of organized labor’s participation on the national level and the function of the Joint Labor Participation Department. An opportunity to interview an American Federation of Labor staff member of that Department presented itself shortly after the framework of the study was developed. He was able to help only with the current activities at the national level. The labor staff of the Community Chest had available much of the community service literature published by the A. F. of L. and the C. I. O. and were able to obtain those documents not in their possession but available from their respective organizations. This material disclosed the policy of the A. F. of L. through its National Community Relations Committee and the policy of the C. I. 0. through its Rational Community Services Committee along with many recommendations to local unions about active participation in community services at the local level. Events do not occur in a vacuum. To show process, the external forces exerting influence upon and shaping the process must be understood. In order to obtain this insight, it was necessary to read much literature which did not pertain directly to the participation of organized labor in community services but which identified some of the factors which made such participation possible. The bibliography contains the specific works consulted. The areas which this literature covered were the history of organized labor, the growth and development of com- munity chests and councils, organized labor as a social movement, the psychology of social movements, United States economic history, labor economics, the economics of the automobile industry, and industrial relations. D. Limitations ”here were several limitations which had to be faced in producing this study. The local C. I. O. unions were involved in preparations for negotiations with General hotors Corporation concerning a new contract. For these unions, contract negotiations are all absorbing, and it was not possible to arouse much interest on the part of these locals toward this study which to them meant little in comparison to the other events taking place. In addition, many times information was found which could not be used. This happened especially in the casual, unstructured conversations had by this writer with various persons. There is no doubt that some of the material obtained in this way was true and pertinent, but the lO informal manner in which this information was gathered precluded its use in the study. Sometimes it was found that events happened in such a way that only the surface features could be observed. Fairly reasonable assumptions could usually be made concerning the underlying factors involved, but there was often enough of an element of doubt still existing as to make the use of such material questionable. Chapter III HISTORY OF THE UNITED COMMUNITY CHEST OF INGHAM COUNTY AND THE COMLUNITY SERVICES COUNCIL Lansing experienced its first attempt in joint fund raising in 1916 when the War Chest came into being. The end of World War I brought an end to the War Chest but not to the idea of joint fund campaigns. Mr. Earle W. Goodnow, one of the early leaders in the Lansing Community Welfare Fund, has said that joint fund raising eliminated the many appeals for money, out down the number of requests made on industry for contributions, and increased the number of contributors. In his opinion, joint fund raising was a good idea and enjoyed industry's full support.1 In the summer of 1919, the matter of organizing a community chest or fund was suggested by Dr. E. W. Bishop and N . Ray Potter at a meeting of the Associated Charities.2 Having discussed the idea with a number of leading citizens, Dr. Bishop called a meeting of those interested, 1From an interview on February 23, 1955, with Mr. Earle W. Goodnow. hr. Goodnow was the Lansing Community Welfare Fund Campaign Manager in 1926 and Fund President in 1929 and 1930. He was until his retirement Manager of the Atlas Drop Forge, Lansing, Michigan. 2Associated Charities was later called the Social Service Bureau and is now known as the Family Service Agency of Lansing, Michigan. 12 at the offices of the Chamber of Commerce, which was presided over by Mr. Potter. The Chairman was instructed to select a steering committee of five men. This was soon done1 and, in addition, Mr. Edwin O. Izant was asked to serve as secretary. This steering committee, having studied the matter carefully through the summer, on October 22, 1919, met at the Kerns Hotel and decided to organize the Community Welfare Fund of Lansing. Mr. Frank N. Arbaugh was elected temporary Executive Director. On October 24, Mr. Ray Potter was elected permanent Chairman and Er. E. O. Izant, Secretary-Treasurer. The First fund campaign was held the same fall and the goal was set at $90,000.00. Mr. Arthur Hurd was the first Campaign cnairman.5 Under his direction, 364,451.25 was raised from approximately three thousand contributors. The money was apportioned to the eleven agencies to cover their budget needs and to the Community Fund for the expenses of the campaign.4 1The committee included Messrs. Ray Potter, Chairman, William K. Prudden, Frank N. Arbaugh, Clarence E. Benent, and Charles Nichols. 2A statement given by Mr. Donald E. Bates at the regular monthly meeting of the Ministerial Association held at the Plymouth Congregational Church on May 6, 1929. From the files of the United Community Chest of Ingham County. 3For list of Campaign Chairmen and Presidents see Appendix II. 4See Table I 15 TABLE 1 Participating Agencies and Amount of Money Received by Each from the First Community Helfare Fund Cam- paign of Lansing, hichigan, 1919. Participating Agency Amount of honey Received Associated Charities 15,500.00 Boy Scouts 5,500.00 Ingham County T.B. Society 56.50 Michigan Children's Home 5,215.20 Palmer Shoe Fund 298.00 Playground Association 10.00 Salvation Army 1,500.00 Social Center 5,814.08 Volunteers of America 2,750.00 Y.M.C.A. 18,900.00 Y.W.C.A. 5,725.00 Source: ANNUAL REPORT 1920, Lansing Community Welfare Fund, p. 2. The first campaign did not succeed in reaching its goal. A meeting was called by the Fund Trustees for September 27, 1920, to decide upon the desirability of continuing the Fund. Miss Sarah A. Brown, Executive of the Associated Charities, said her agency would like to see the Fund continue. The first drive had been a success, not a failure, in that the campaign brought about the cooperation and coordination of the community social agencies. 1Minutes of a meeting of the Central Committee of the Lansing Community Welfare Fund, September 27, 1920. 14 The member societies voted to continue the Fund. The 1920 goal was lowered to n72,ooo.oo, and Ir. .1 Harry J. Schmidt from the Financial Service Bureau of the National Y.h.C.A. was hired to direct the campaign. The drive more than reached the goal. The sum of $90,588.00 was pledged by 6,517 subscribers.1 The Fund Trustees continued the policy of hiring part time campaign directors until the summer of 192 when the first full time director was hired.2 ‘A council of Social Agencies, conposed of repre- sentatives of member societies and of Fund Trustees, was activated in 1928. Lonthly service reports were read and discussed and some social work planning was attempted. It was not an official Council, but it did permit the agencies to get together.5 Early in 1927, each of the three sections of the H Council-~"the Helief group, " "the health group, and 1i . n . ., . nor a complete list 01 campaign goals, amounts pledged, and number of contributors, see appendix I. q Cur. harry J. Smith directed the ceMpaigns of 19:0 through 1924, and hr. Charles F. Coykendale directed the campaigns of 1925 and 1928. 5From an interview on February 21, 1955, with Miss Ruth Bowen, Director of the Childrens Division of the Michigan State Department of Social Jelfare, formerly Director of the Social Service Bureau of Lansing, hichigan. Q 15 "the Character Building group"--recommended a study be made of the Community Welfare Fund and the welfare picture in Lansing with the hope that a full time director could be hired for the Fund. One of the reasons for wanting such a study was that "not enough money was being raised."1 The community was growing and the Fund was depending upon the factories to carry the financial load. The agencies and the Fund Trustees felt a full time director would better be able to keep the fund raising organization together. It was a "natural" development.2 "The Fund was growing so fast the Trustees decided a study was needed to insure the efficiency of the organization."5 In the spring of 1927, Professor Carter Taylor of the University of Chicago, came to Lansing and made the study. Twenty-nine recommendations were made, from which the following five are summarized:4 l 2 Ibid. From the interview with Mr. Earle W. Goodnow. 5From an interview on February 24, 1955, with Mr. Bruce E. Anderson, Manager of the Hotel Olds, Lansing, Michigan, formerly Fund Campaign Manager in 1924 and 1925 and Fund President in 1955. 4 Carter Taylor. Social and Welfare flork lg Lansing, Michigan, ngwo Week Study. 1927. 1. A full time director of the Community Welfare Fund is needed. 2. The Board of Trustees should be reorganized. 5. The annual budget-making procedure should be changed. 4. Year around budgetary control is needed. 5. A functioning Council of Social Agencies is needed. The hiring of a full time executive, Mr. Victor S. Woodward, was the first recommendation to be carried out.1 The Board of Trustees was reorganized and enlarged, the budgeting procedure was changed, and a Council of Social Agencies was established with an annual budget of 3100.00. The Fund Campaign of 1929 reached a high mark which was not surpassed until 1942. With Mr. Earle W. Goodnow as President and Mr. J. Edward Roe as Campaign Manager, $204,025.00 was pledged. Mr. Goodnow stated in the Annual President‘s Report made on November 12, 1929, that one of the accomplishments during the year was "the establishment in a number of industries of the two- tenths of one per cent plan of wage deduction for the Community Welfare Fund." With the advent of payroll 1For a complete list of Community Fund and Community Chest Directors, see Appendix III. 1'? deduction the Fund entered into a new era of fund raising. The depression of the 1950's reversed the trend of fund campaign success and struck the Lansing Community Welfare Fund a severe financial blow. The 1955 fund campaign pledges dropped to 3107,105.00, almost fifty per cent under the amount pledged in the 1929 campaign. Agencies' budgets were cut accordingly. Efforts were made to strengthen the Community Welfare Fund. The Board of Trustees was enlarged from nine to twelve members in 1955. "Tne idea of having twelve trustees is recommended so that three men may be selected from the ranks of factory and other laborers. Provision for including on the Trustees a representative of one company union has come to us from the management of one of our large industries, as well as from the company union."l However, the persons who were added to the Board at that time did not come from labor's leaders or from the ranks of labor. The American City Bureau, a professional fund raising organization, was engaged by the Campaign Committee in 1954.2 1Notice of a Meeting of the Presidents and Executives of the hember Agencies of the Lansing Community Welfare Fund, October 20, 1955. Minutes of a meeting of the Campaign Committee, Lansing Community Helfare Fund, July 50, 1954. 18 This move met with some success, and the Board retained the same firm in 1955.1 The Campaign Committee recommended to the Board of Trustees in June of 1956 "that the next campaign be held in November for the purpose of financing the Fund and its agencies for the seven month period between October 1, 1956, and April 50, 1957, and that the 1957-58 campaign be held not later than the first Thursday in April to raise funds for the twelve month period beginning May 1, 1957."2 The professional fund raisers were not retained for this short campaign because the Trustees thought it could be handled by the Fund staff. This short term campaign was oversubscribed. On January 1, 1958, a new executive, Mr. Joseph D. Gibbons, was hired by the Board. A new emphasis was placed on the Council of Social Agencies which was quickly reflected in its budget.5 During the summer of 1958, the Board of Trustees moved to enlarge the Board membership and nominate someone lIinutes of a meeting of the Campaign Committee, Lansing Community Welfare Fund, March 12, 1955. 2Minutes of a meeting of the Campaign Committee, Lansing, Community Welfare Fund, June 1, 1956. 5See Table 2 19 TABLE 2 Budget Request to and Allocations from Lansing Community welfare Fund for Ing- ham County Council of Social Agencies, 1957 to 1940. Amount Amount Budget Year Requested Allocated 1957-58 a 119.00 a 119.00 1958-59 1,560.00 1,025.00 1959-40 5,505.00 2,070.00 Source: Budget recommendations of Division Bud- get Committee, 1958-59, and Minutes of Board of Trustees Meeting of the Lansing Community welfare Fund, June 6, 1959. "acceptable to all labor interests."l Letters were sent to the labor leaders of the community. Loca15182, International Union United Automobile Workers of America,2 indicated it did not wish to become involved in participation 5 with the Community Welfare Fund. The Lansing Federation 1Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Lansing Community Welfare Fund, June 2, 1958. 2Local #182 was a federal local organized by the A. F. of L. When the C. I. 0. and A. F. of L. separated, Local #182 went with U. A. W. - C. I. 0. When U. A. w. — C. I. O. was split by internal dissension, Local #182 becameem A. F. of L. affiliate again. 7 . )Letter dated August 27, 1958, from Mr. Leo Feldspausch, Recording Secretary of Loca15182, U. A. N., to Mr. Gordon S. Bygrave, President of the Board of Trustees of the Lansing Community Welfare Fund. 20 of Labor1 responded favorably and submitted three names from which the Board appointed Frank Shaw to its member- ship. The remaining vacancy was left unfilled in the hope that a more favorable response would be forthcoming from the hndustrial unions. In December of 1958, the Board of Trustees changed the name of the Community Felfare Fund to the Greater Lansing Community Chest, Incorporated, "due to the confusion which existed in the community because of the word 'welfare' incorporated in the name of the Community Welfare Fund.2 The fund campaign results of 1958 and 1959 were low. The local unions had stopped solicitations of hourly workers in the factories, which was a seVere blow to the methods of fund solicitation used by the Chest. Also, Lansing, like the rest of the country, was in a period of economic depression. In 1959, there was a loss of $6,000.00 to the Community Chest from the Rec Motor Car Company as it was uncertain whether or not that company would be continuing 3 in business. ICopy of a letter dated July 15, 1958, from Mr. John Reid, Secretary-Treasurer of the Michigan Federation of Labor, to Mr. M. J. Maynard, Chairman of the Nominating Committee of the Board of Trustees of the Lansing Community Welfare Fund. 2.. . . Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Lans1ng Community Welfare Fund, December 8, 1958. 5Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, May 22, 1959. 21 Early in 1940, Mr. M. F. Cotes, General Campaign Manager, 1959-40, made a report to the Board of Trustees on the interviews he was having with leaders of organized labor.1 Intense negotiations between Mr. Cotes and the leaders of U. A. W.-C. I. O. locals continued from January into March and culminated in an agreement. Each local was given the right to appoint one man to the Chest Board of Trustees and in turn would endorse and actively support the annual fund campaigns.2 The Board of Trustees was enlarged in May of 1940 from fifteen to twenty-one members. The six vacancies created were filled with persons selected by the Ingham County Council of Social .‘felfare.5 The Board of Trustees of the Chest was again enlarged in 1941, this time from twenty-one to twenty—four members. War clouds from Europe were gathering on the horizon of the United States. The military induction system was in operation and many young men were being drafted into lMinUtes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, January 22, 1940. 2Copy of a letter dated march 12, 1940, to Dean H. B. Dirks, President of the Board of Trustees of the Greater Lansing Community Chest, from Kr. h. F. Cotes, Campaign Chairman. 5Minutes of a joint meeting of the committees of the Community Chest and the Council of Social Helfare on Revision of the Chest and Council Constitution, May 8, 1940. the Armed Forces. The United Service Organizations cameinto being in 1941 and asked to hold its first drive for funds in Ingham County. Mr. L. B. Jeffries, Executive Director of the Community Chest at that time was loaned to the U. S. O. at the request of its local Board of Directors.1 Many requests from war time agencies and appeals puured into the Community Chest. Two fund campaigns were scheduled and held in 1941 at the request of the Community Chests and Councils of America, Inc., one campaign was for the regular members of the Chest, and the other for the war time agencies. Hope was expressed that a merger of the two appeals would occur shortly.2 Plans were made for the incorporation of pertinent agencies into a single war chest for Ingham County.5 The proposal for such action was submitted to and endorsed by the Chest Board on March 10, 1942. On April 14, 1942, the Chest Board elected to become a member of the Ingham County War Fund. The Chest Board President, Mr. Filliam lfiinutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, April 29, 1941. 2Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, May 15, 1941. 3Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, February 10, 1942. Collinge, resigned and was elected to the presidency of the Ingham County Ear Fund Board of Directors.1 In 1942, the C. I. 0. Committee for American and Allied Relief and the A. F. of L. United Nations Relief Committee, both of whom had been appointed by their organizations to campaign for funds, signed an agreement with the Community Chests and Councils of America, Inc., "to cooperate fully and inclusively with community and war chests when war appeals are included and when satis- factory local agreements are made."2 This agreement was for only war time appeals, and it was to terminate when the necessity for war time appeals ended. The agreement brought a stabilizing influence to chest—labor relation- ships from the national level. When the need for war time appeals ended, a new chest-labor agreement was created. The Ingham County Jar Fund Board of Directors voted on December 11, 1942, to accept the national agree— ment with labor organizations. A joint A. F. of L. and C. I. O. committee sponsored projects during World War II and received some funds from 5 the Far Chest. 1Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, April 14, 1942. 203 the Alert, published by Community Chests and Councils, Inc., August 17, 1942. 5 Report of Expenditures of the Ingham County Far Fund, 1944. An interim fund campaign was held in May of 1945 for the purpose of moving the annual dates of the fund drive from the spring to the fall of the year. The campaign goal was based on the amount of money needed by the agencies for seven months.1 A problem was created by this change of campaign dates in 1945 as it had been by the similar change of campaign dates which had occurred in 1956. It was difficult to determine whether the agencies were being paid for the month ahead or the month past. If the former were true, then there was a small surplus. If the latter were true, then there was a deficit in the Chest's finances. The latter was finally declared to be the true picture. Money was found to make up the deficit; but in order to avoid any future confusion of a similar nature, the Chest Board changed the Constitution and By-Laws to read "on a calendar year basis" instead of a "May to May basis," the change to be effective January 1, 1945.2 In 1945, several more changes were made in the Constitution, two of which are noted here: 1) One man 1Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, February 8, 1944. 2Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, September 26, 1944. 25 shall not serve more than two consecutive three year terms as a member of the Board of Directors, and 2) the Budget Committee shall be enlarged to include all of the Board members plus six persons to be named by the Ingham County Council of Social Welfare.1 Another rather significant event occurred in 1945. The Red Feather was adopted as the official symbol of the Community Chest in Lansing as it was throughout the nation. The term "Red Feather" has since become synonomous with Community Chest, and the two terms are used interchangeably. The fund campaign for 1946 was the last one conducted with the National Jar Fund. The Ingham County War Fund was officially dissolved in 1947, and the surplus money 5 was divided among the participating members. The Greater Lansing Community Chest agreed to become responsible for the outstanding debts and pledges of the War Fund. Additional evidence of the participation of organized labor became noticeable in the fund campaign organization of 1947 when the name of the Industry Division was changed 1Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Iansing Community Chest, April 10, 1945. 2Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Greater Lansing Community Chest, August 20, 1945. 3Report entitled, "Review of 1947 Greater Lansing Com- IDunity Chest Board of Directors Action." to Labor and Industry. Also, the earliest discussion found in the records concerning labor staff for the Community Chest appeared in a campaign committee meeting on August 1, 1946. The Committee referred the matter of labor staff to the Chest Executive and three of the labor leaders for further discussion.1 The year 1947 brought an increasing number of requests for funds from national appeal groups. The Chest Board Committee on National Appeals rejected all requests and "interested itself in the development of the United Health and Welfare Fund of Michigan."2 Lansing worked with other cities in the state to solve the growing problem of multiple appeals. The situation in 1947 on the state level was similar to that of the local level in 1919 when the Community Helfare Fund was created. The Community Chest added to its Central Services5 in 1948. On March 8, an announcement of the establishment of the Central Information and Referral Service was made at a meeting of the Board of Directors. The purpose of lIinutes of a meeting of the 1947 Campaign Committee, Greater Lansing Community Chest, August 1, 1946. 2Report entitled, "Review of 1947 Greater Lansing Community Chest Board of Directors Action." 5Central Services are coordinating services financed and administered by the Community Chest for the purpose of facilitating agency services and program. {‘0 u this new service was to provide a central office which would supply accurate information to persons seeking general agency information and wnich would make direct referrals to the agencies as necessary. On April 1, 1948, the appointment of the present director of the Community Chest, Richard C. Hicks, became effective. Previous to this he had been the Executive Secretary of the Ingham County Council of Social Helfare. Action to enlarge the Community Chest Board of Directors was again taken in December of 1948. The recommendation quoted below shows the Board was making a very conscious effort to secure broad community representation. "The recommendation of the Executive Committee is that the present Board should be enlarged by six members in order to permit wider representation from various groups in the community. It is felt the most efficient method to educate various individuals and groups . . . as to the needs of the Community Chest is by familiarity of its program and purpose. This can only be achieved through active participation on the Board of Directors?1 The Board elected to increase its membership from twenty—four to thirty and specified the 1Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors, Greater Lansing Community Chest, December 14, 1948. six vacancies be filled with two persons from labor, two from industry, one from a profession, and one from business. The results of an analysis of the membership of the Community Chest Board of Directors in March of 1949 Table 5 Professional, Occupational, and Institutional Classifications of Board of Directors, Greater Lansing Community Chest march, 1949. Classification of Membership humoer of hach TOTAL R) 'Q Organized Labor Large Industry Small Industry Real Estate Downtown Commercial Housewives Ministerial Insurance Agents Attorneys Physicians City Government Utilities Outlying Business EUblicity Media Michigan State College HHHHHHHHmmmmmwm Source: Membership List of the Board of Directors, Greater Lansing Community Chest, March 8, 1949. , I") E9 is shown in Table 5. The analysis was specifically made for the March 8, 1949, meeting of the Board of Directors in order to provide information for filling three existing vacancies. It indicates that the Board was making a serious effort to obtain the wide representation to which it had pledged itself in December, 1948. By 1949, the United Health and Welfare Fund of Michiganl had been organized to work with the state and national organization in their appeals for funds in Michigan. Several meetings were held between the ex- ecutive committees of the State United Health and Welfare Fund and the Greater Lansing Community Chest. In the summer of 1949, an agreement was reached to hold separate campaigns in 1949 and work for a merger of the Greater Lansing Community Chest and the United Health and Welfare Fund of Ingham County before the following fund campaign.2 1A state wide organization to consider state and national appeals for funds and to conduct fund campaigns in counties not having fund raising organizations. Since its inception, its offices have been in Lansing, hichigan. 2Minutes of a joint meeting of the executive committees of the United Health and Nelfare Fund of Michigan and the Greater Lansing Community Chest, July 7, 1949. 50 In 1950, central housing was secured for the Community Chest and some of its member agencies. The Chest Board investigated several sites and finally purchased from the Auto Owners Life Insurance Company the buildings now occupied at 601 and 615 Korth Capitol Avenue in Lansing.1 The merger of the Greater Lansing Community Chest and the Ingham County United Health and Helfare Fund took place in 1950 as scheduled. Approval for the merger by the Community Chest Board of Directors came in August,2 and the first meeting of the organizers was held in September. IThe officers of the Greater Lansing Community Chest were appointed to hold office until officers for the new organization could be elected in 1951.5 The new organization was named the United Community Chest of Ingham County, Inc. The Ingham County Council of Social Welfare4 was in a process of reorganization in 1950 and 1951. In February 1Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors, Greater Lansing Community Chest, May 9, 1950. 2Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors, Greater Lansing Community Chest, August 8, 1950. 5minutes of the first meeting of the Board of Directors, United Community Chest of Ingham County, September 5, 1950. 4The primary function of the Council is to coordinate the service functions of the social agencies and the social planning activities of the community and to provide leadership in the development of Lansing's social welfare services. It is not a corporate agency. The Executive Director of the Community Chest is administratively responsible for the Council. 51 of 1951, the Council Constitution was changed, giving it a board of directors and creating its three functional divisions: Health, Family and Child Care, and Recreation and Group Nork.l Another central service was created in harch of 1951. The Volunteer Bureau was organized with the aid of the Lansing Junior League to coordinate agency requests for volunteers and the requests of individuals to give volunteer service. The Junior League financed and staffed the Bureau with volunteer leaders as an experimental project.2 The fund campaign for 1952, which included the Com- munity Chest member agencies, the United Health and Welfare Fund, and a new appeal called the United Defense Fund which arose because of the fighting in Korea, raised more than half a million dollars. Although the amount pledged ($536,111.00) was 314,000.00 under the goal, it was $95,000.00 more than the total pledged in the 1951 campaign. In 1952, the Red Cross and the Community Chest reached an agreement to undertake a joint campaign.5 Up until 1From an interview on April 20, 1955, with Mr. Peretz Katz, Executive Secretary of the Community Services Council, Lansing, Michigan. 2Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors' Executive Committee, United Community Chest of Ingham County, March 8, 1951. 5Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors, United Community Chest of Ingham County, June 10, 1952. this time, Red Cross had been one of the large national appeals which had resisted federated financing. The agreement caused a hugh increase in the 1955 campaign goal. The larger goal was no deterrent, and the h695,590.00 pledged exceeded the goal by $60,000.00. This was an increase of $157,000.00 over tne 1952 fund drive. Evidence of special education programs developed by organized labor and the Chest to reach union members could be seen in the first Come-See Toursl sponsored in 1950.2 The Community Services Institute, held in the spring of 1952 for C. I. 0. members, was co-sponsored by the Chest.5 In February of 1955, a joint labor—management committee was appointed by the Board of Directors of the Community Chest at the request of the A. F. of L. The Federation "planned to familiarize their members with (Chest agencies') . . ; . . 4 serv1ces(s) by various publiCity media." 1Tours of social agencies arranged for members of organized labor in order that they might see social agencies in operation and have agency philosophy and purpose ex- plained to them while in the agency setting. 2Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors, Greater Lansing Community Chest, June 14, 1949. 5Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors, United Community Chest of Ingham County, may 15, 1952. 4n. . , . . minutes of a meeting of tne Board of Directors, United Community Chest of Ingham County, February 10, 1955. A three year plan to improve the budget process was inaugurated in 1955. The purpose of the plan was to involve more people in the budget operation by increasing the number of persons on the Budget Committee from thirty- six to over a hundred. The thinking behind the plan was much the same as in 1948-49 when the Board of Directors was enlarged: inform more people by getting more people to participa e.1 In 1954, the Community Chest Staff was loaned to the Hospital Expansion Fund to conduct the Hospital Fund Campaign. An integral part of that campaign was the Hospital Survey, conducted under the sponsorship of the Ingham County Council of Social Welfare. The survey aided in making the fund raising campaign a success as well as in serving as a framework for securing citizen participation and opinion to guide expansion of hospital facilities and services. The Ingham County Council of Social Welfare changed its name to the Community Services Council in February 1, . . 1 i For a conCise statement of tne budget process, see .. .1». ° (-1 1 ' ,3 '1N ‘ 1 ‘7‘." o - r! W . ‘ Budoetinv, a pamphlet puolisheq by tne united community Chest of ingham county, (no date). 2Summary of a statement by the Executive Director of the United Community Chest of Ingham County at a meeting of the Board of Directors, Community Services Council, February 2, 1955. 54 of 1954.1 The geographic area served by the Council had been enlarged to include parts of Clinton and Eaton counties as well as Ingham County. A new name which would not restrict the Council to Ingham County was needed. The fact that the word "welfare" in the old name created confusion with another agency in the com- munity having a similar name also contributed to the need for a change of name. In may of 1954, the Community Chest hired two representatives of organized labor, one from the C. I. 0. and one from the A. F. of L., to serve on its staff.2 One of their functions was to develop an educational program informing the members of organized labor about the services available through the social agencies in the community. Another function was direct referral of members of their labor organizations to appropriate agencies when the need for service arose. The prospect for a successful campaign for 1955 was not bright. Unemployment was high and the huge hospital 1Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors, Ingham County Council of Social Welfare, February 19, 1954. 2Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors, United Community Chest of Ingham County, May 11, 1954. 05 I fund campaign had been held earlier in the year. Despite these difficulties, pledges for $781,187.17 were received, making the 1955 drive the largest in the history of Lansing. During and after the 1955 campaign, requests came from smaller communities as far as twenty-five miles away from Lansing, asking for a new plan of fund raising in which these smaller communities might participate. There are many problems to overcome in developing a metropolitan community chest, but it appears this is considered the next logical step in the growth of the United Community Chest of Ingham County.l 1From an informal discussion with the staff of the United Community Chest of Ingham County. Chapter IV AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS OF INVOLVEMENT 0F ORGANIZED LABOR IN COMMUNITY CHEST AND COUECIL ACTIVITIES World War I made a profound impact on the social and economic life of the people in every community in the United States. The industrial production capacity of the nation was challenged by and found able to meet the demands created by modern warfare. High production brought economic prosperity which stimulated a greater domestic demand for products of industry. The entry of the United States into the war in Europe created new demands on social agencies. The Red ‘ Cross, Y.M.C.A., Knights of Columbus, Jewish flar Relief, Salvation Army, and other organizations increased their requests for funds to serve American soldiers at home and abroad. War time prosperity, coupled with the emotional and patriotic appeals of these agencies, stimulated a great increase in giving. However, the rapidity with which the solicitations were made brought demands for improved coordination for the collection of charitable funds. The war chests which arose were the result of efforts to deal with the multiple appeals problems. "The basic purpose of these war chests was to raise in one drive the sums needed to meet the quotas assigned to the city by the various war charities . . . . The war-chest organization also enabled these cities to deal with the headquarters of the various national war charities in a business-like way and to arrive at quotas that were adjusted to local fund-raising capacities."l Lansing was one of the first cities in the country to set up a war chest.2 This was done in 1916. World War I also affected organized labor. When the United States entered the war in 1917, the A. F. of L. pledged its full support and c00peration to the war effort of the federal government. A. F. of L. leaders were given responsible positions on war production and industrial peace committees. "An implicit bargain was made between organized workers and employers, with the aid and blessing of government. Business, favored by profitable orders and suspension of anti-trust laws, 1Wayne Mchillen. Communitz Organization for Social Velfare. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1945, ——"'7"-' p0 4100 2A statement by Donald E. Bates at the regular monthly meeting of the ministerial Association held at the Plymouth Congregational Church, Lansing, Michigan, May 6, 1929. From the Files of the United Community Chest of Ingham County. vs an wanted steady production. In order to secure work uninterrupted by disputes, it offered and made large concessions to labor. Union gains and prestige reached unprecedented heights. Nearly 2,000,000 new workers joined A. F. of L. unions from 1917 to 1920, almost doubling their total membership."1 Mr. Greer's use of the term "blessing of government" is a very important point to remember and indicates the significance of government's attitudes, from both sympathetic and unsympathetic administrations, on the growth of organized labor. The protection given organized labor by government during World War I was the first such intervention on behalf of labor. Two rather fundamental principles necessary to the growth of labor were established during the administrations of President Woodrow Wilson-that workers were free to organize and that workers were free to join unions of their own choice without interference by the employer.2 lThomas Greer. American Social Reform Novements. New Work: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1949, p. 125. 2Lloyd G. Reynolds. Labor Economics and Labor Relations. Jew York: Prentice—hall, Inc., 1952, p. 95. For interesting reading on the influence of government on the growth of organized labor and on industrial relations, see pp. 81-502. v4 u) The termination of hostilities in 1918 brought an end to the temporary, harmonious war-time-created in- dustrial relations in the United States. Consumer prices, which had soared during the war, kept on rising in 1919 and cut purchasing power. Organized labor resorted to strikes to raise wages but was met with strong opposition. Employers staged a determined drive to maintain the "open shop"1 and thereby deprive labor of one of its powerful weapons. Many strikes were lost because government withdrew its protection of labor at the end of the war. A "Red scare" swept the country in 1919-1921. The Industrial Workers of the Horld, a labor organization which had acquired great public disfavor because of its tactics and professed purpose, was made the target of government prosecution for alleged illegal and un—American activities. All of organized labor was placed in a catagory with the I. W. W., and organized labor took on a disreputable cloak in the eyes of the public. Labor 1The shop in which there is no discrimination in hiring between union and non-union members and in which workers, after hiring, remain free to join or remain outside the union. i sit}... .ll‘lilv 40 leaders and organizers were frequently referred to as I II I "radicals," "agitators,‘ gan sters," "thugs,' and if; other less complimentary names.l With public Opinion against unions, employers made use of the "Yellow-Dog"2 contract. Industrial relations were bitter and court injunctions were issued against many trade unions. These background conditions are significant and important to understand because it was in such an atmosphere that the Lansing Community flelfare Fund was organized. The demands of national war time agencies had ceased, but federated financing had become an answer to the problem of fund solicitation for charitable institutions.5 "Donors are usually credited with having started community chests. In fact, the statement has often 1From an interview on April 6, 1955, with Mr. Thomas Borst, A. F. of L. labor staff member of the United Community Chest of Ingham County and former Business Agent of A. F. of L. Painters' Local #485. See also Thomas Greer. qp. git. pp. 125-124. 2"Yellow-Dog" was the name applied by labor unions to the agreement in which the worker pledged as a condition of employment not to join a labor union. 5See Chapter II for a history of the organization of the Community welfare Fund of Lansing. 41 been made that chests began as a 'big givers' protective movement.‘ "1 —An examination of the backgrounds of the persons who were the Welfare Fund's first officers, first Board of Trustees, and first Campaign Committee showed that they were persons of nigh positions in banking, business, commerce, and industry. Mr. Earle fl. Goodnow said that when he started to become active in the Fund after it was organized, most of the top men came from manufacturing firms and most of the money was coming from the same source.2 The statement that the Chest was a "big givers' protective movement" is not accurate. One of the objectives of the Fund was to broaden the base of contributors in keeping with the generally accepted principle that all persons in the community have a responsibility to support the social services needed by the persons residing in that community. The writer found no evidence that this policy was developed to reduce contributions from "big givers? The Board of the Fund represented the community power structure of that time Labor was not l:‘fayne hehillen. ‘gp.cit., p. 417. 2From the interview with Mr. Earle fl. Goodnow. 42 a power in the community and was not represented. Organized labor did not participate in the Community Fund, and apparently some resistance was met when workers were solicited. hr. Harry J. Schmidt,1 Campaign Director in 1925, made a suggestion to hr. Bruce B. Anderson, General Campaign Chairman of 1925, after the close of the campaign in the fall of that year. Because the Chamber of Commerce is made up almost entirely of employers, there is a great danger of overlooking the fact that there are real and influential leaders among the workers them- selves. In order to corral this leadership a very determined effort should be made to enlist their cooperation in advance of the Campaign. Presentations should be made at Labor Union meetings and other Labor gatherings, as well as before Lodges and Societies made up almost entirely of working men. This type of cooperation requires a different type man than is represented in the great majority of recent Executive er. Harry J. Schmidt was a member of the Financial Bureau of the National Y. M. C. A. and came to Lansing each fall to direct the Fund Campaign. The information concerning Mr. Schmidt came from an interview with Mr. Bruce B. Anderson, hanager of the Olds Hotel, on February 24, 1955. Mr. Anderson talked about the relationship of Mr. R. E. Olds and hr. R. H. Scott with the Y. M. C. A. and Mr. Olds's relationship with Mr. John R. Mott, an internationally known Y. M. C. A. figure. It was through these relationships that Lansing was able to use the — n experienced fund raising staff of the National Y. m. C. A. Mr. Schmidt's request to involve labor leaders was discussed in the same interview witn Mr. Anderson. hr. Anderson said that the craft unions had been asked to Committees and will require careful study and tactful handling, but it ought and should be done in order to {et a more activelparticipation on tr e part of the Lorzing people. The re efe e'nce in hr. Schmidt's letter to secure organized labor's participation in the Community Jelfare Fund wa tr e first and only such reference found in the records until 1955 when Hr. Bruce E. Anderson was President of the Fund. A study of the records revealed nothing to indicate that any steps were taken by the Board of Trustees to stimulate the active participation of labor. participate in the Fund, but the attitudes of some per- sons from the unions and from the Board of Trustees made participation impossible. A review of the records does not indicate that anything was done to obtain labor's participation until 1953. This inconsistency may be due to there being nothing in the reco*ds about the earlier attempts or to a misunderstanding of the dates about which the discussion revolved. The reference to the Chamber of Commerce in Ir. Schmidt's letter was also discussed with wr. Anderson. he said he knew of no connection outleen the Fund and the Cha;::oer althou h many of the meetings of the rund Board and campaign committees were held in the Chamber's offices. 1! . A a 7- nn excerpt from a COpy of a letter from hr. harry J. Solmidt to hr. Bruce H. Anderson dated October 24, d 9c}. H Mr. Goodnowl was also asked if an attempt had been made to secure labor's participation in the Fund. He said there was no attempt to involve labor in fund raising or in planning of services. He expressed an attitude which seemed to be representative of the attitude generally held by managerent toward organized labor after Horld War I—-that management could get things done with- out organized labor. The lack of participation of organized labor in the Community Helfare Fund in the 1920's was substantiated by an examination and identification of the peOple whose names appeared in the annual reports, on campaign stationery, in records of meetings, and in correspondence in the Community Chest files. Industrial executives, business men, merchants, bankers, professional men, and wives of influential citizens made up the membership on the boards and committees. The Welfare Fund was the idea of these persons, and their control is apparent in these years. There were factors which kept organized labor from seeking to participate. The depressions in 1919 and again in 1921 created difficulties for labor unions. l , . . . , -- a. , From tne interView with hr. narle w. Goodnow. 45 Economic depressions have usually resulted in a drop in union membership. The strongly organized craft unions of the A. F. of L. in Lansing, however, were able to .. .. , 1 continue although some members did drop out. Dates of Initial Troughs, Peaks, and Terminal Troughs of Business Cycles in the United States, April, 1919, to May, 1958 Initial Troughs Peaks Terminal Troughs April, 1919 January, 1920 September, 1921 September, 1921 hay, 1925 July, 1924 July, 1924 October, 1926 De ember, 1927 December, 1927 June, 1929 March, 1955 harch, 1955 May, 1957 hay, 1938 Source: Adapted from a Table of Business Cycles, Jesley C. Kitchell. Fhat Happens Durinngusiness C cles2 Cambridge: Riverside Press, 1951, P. l . 1From an interview with Mr. Andrew Virtue, Business Agent of the Bricklayers Local No. 51, on April 14, 1955. 2Business cycles are a type of fluctuation found in the aggregate economic activity of nations that organize their work mainly in business and industry. A cycle consists of expansion occuring at about the same time in many economic activities, followed by similar general reces- sions, contractions, and revivals which merge into an expansion phase of the next cycle. This sequence of changes are recurrent but not periodic. In duration business cycles vary from more than one to ten or twelve years; they are not divisable into shorter cycles of similar character. A. F. Burns and H. C. Mitchell. heasuring Business Cycles. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1946, p. 5. Mechanization in industry was destroying skilled jobs and increasing the number of unskilled workers.1 This meant that the A. F. of L. had fewer craftsmen to organize and would have to intensify its efforts to— wards the organization of industrial workers if it were to continue to grow. In this objective the A. F. of L. was not successful. The inability of A. F. of L. to organize industrial groups led to a serious breach of unity in organized labor which has not yet been suc- cessfully closed. Lansing industry was and still is tied quite closely to the automobile industry. Organization of industrial workers occurred first in the large cities and spread slowly into smaller communities, usually with much conflict. "It is possible . . . that in the smaller communities employers have greater control over the political life of the community, the media of information, the agencies of law enforcement, and so on."2 This may have been another reason for the slowness with which organized labor developed in Lansing. lThomas Greer. g2. cit., p. 151. 2Lloyd Reynolds. gp. cit., p. 75. Ill .|!‘I]ll|..| is!!! it ‘1 . Eli 1 I’llilllilli II" 1‘ 47 Organized labor in Lansing in the 1920's was not a powerful force in the community. The number of persons it represented was very small. Those industrial workers who were members of unions belonged to company unions. Joining a company union in some plants was a condition of employment.1 It was not surprising to see that the request of Mr. Harry J. Schmidt to include labor leaders in the fund campaign organization met with little positive response. Public opinion was unsympathetic to organized labor. Management either did not recognize labor or held anti-labor attitudes. Organized labor was not strong, and labor leaders were looked upon as radicals and misfits in society. The fund raising methods of the Community Welfare Fund remained relatively unchanged until 1929 when the Fund introduced the practice of payroll deduction in . 2 V . some of the factories. management5 was responSible 1From an interview on April 1, 1955, with Mr. John Reid, State Commissioner of Labor and formerly President of the Lansing Federation of Labor and of the hichigan Federation of Labor. 2. ., a . ” annual Freeident's Report. Community welfare Fund, Lansing, hichigan, hovember 12: 1929. 7 3From the interview with Mr. Earle E. Goodnow. 48 for solicitation in the factories and developed the two— tenths of one per cent plan. As far as could be determined, the workers were not consulted before the plan was intro- duced. Mr. Earle fl. Goodnow, President of the Fund when wage deduction was developed, explained in an interview how the plan worked and some of the values of it. Each worker was asked to sign a "hire card"1 which permitted the company to deduct the two-tenths of one per cent from his pay each week for the Community Welfare Fund. The deductions continued until his employment with the company was terminated without resolicitation of the employee. Mr. Goodnow insisted that no pressure was used to get the man to sign. The idea of contribution to the Fund was sold to each person. A provision was made in the plan to stop the deduction if the weekly wage dropped below fifteen dollars. Hr. Goodnow stated that percentage giving was more equitable than asking each person to contribute a stated sum. 1A card on which were listed company practices to which the prospective employee must agree before being hired. 2g . . . H q n . From the interView With hr. narle d. Goodnow. l‘h 49 Payroll deduction1 is widely used in factory and business firms to solicit funds from employees at the present time. In informal interviews and conversations with members of organized labor, it was learned that the payroll deduction is referred to as a "check-off," implying that it is compulsory rather than voluntary. However, the individual is now solicited each year and is given the opportunity to make a decision about whether or not to make a pledge to the Community Chest.2 There Was hostility expressed toward payroll de- duction shortly after its introduction, but such opposition was disregarded. Mr. F. M. McBroom, Executive Director of the Fund in 1950, in discussing the acceptance of payroll deduction said, So far as we have been able to learn the executive group in our industries thonmghly approves of this plan of wage deduction. The superintendents and foremen also are heartily in favor of it. There are some objections to lWage deduction and payroll deduction are used to mean the same thing. flage deduction is the older term and is no longer used. Hhen either term is used in this paper, it is to mean payroll deduction for contributions to the Community Helfare Fund or its predecessors in federated financing. 2Although the individual is given the opportunity to make a decision about his contribution, he may not be free to make the decision he would like to make. Plant solic- itation of workers is usually done by management or by a combination of labor and management. Various subtle pressures toward giving are at work on the individual worker which are not always evident. 50 be sure on the part of a few of the workers. They are the group, for the most part, that object to any new ideas, and in ourlopinion these objections will disappear shortly." Apparently there was enough question about payroll deduction throughout the State of hichigan to stimulate the legislature to pass a law to control it: Michigan Penal Code, Act 528, Public Acts of 1951. Sec. 555. Contributions by laborers to charitable purposes and deductions from wages. Any employer of labor, who by himself, his agent, clerk or servant, shall require any employee or person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment or continuance therein, to make and enter into any contract, oral or written, whereby such employee or applicant for employ— ment shall agree to contribute directly or in- directly to any fund for charitable, social or beneficial purpose or purposes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. One of the questions asked in the interview with Mr. John Reid pertained to Section 555 of the State Penal Code. Mr. Reid said the law could not be applied where a man voluntarily signed the "hire card." Some employers did make the signing of "hire cards" a condition of employment, and a man could not get a job without signing. When questioned about the legality of this kind of action, Mr. Reid countered by asking how it 1An excerpt from a c0py of a letter from Mr. F. M. McBroom, Community Welfare Fund Director, to Mrs. H. E. Hastings, Jr., Secretary of the Greater muskegon Com- munity Chest, Muskegon, Michigan, dated January 20, 1950. could be proved that the reason stated by an employer for refusing to hire an individual, which always pertained to something other than willingness to sign the "hire card," was not the true reason. The year 1955 was a significant year for the de- velopment of the Community Helfare Fund, the development of organized labor, and the development of the whole country. A new administration took over the reins of the federal government—an administration friendly to organized labor. The National Industrial Recovery Act of 1955 guaranteed workers the right to organize into unions of their own choosing. This act stimulated organization of new workers in all industries. A. F. of L. immediately started to accept members into its trade unions. Federal localsl were established to speed up the organization process. Localéfl32, which is still the bargaining agent at Motor Wheel Corporation, was originally established as a federal union to organize the industrial workers in Lansing.2 Employers attempted 1A. F. of L. is a federation of many national unions (teamsters, carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, plasterers, etc.) Federal locals were those unions attached directly to A. F. of L. Headquarters rather than to a national union. 2From an interview on April 4, 1955, with Mr. Oscar Wade, C. I. O. labor staff of the United Community Chest of Ingham County, and former President of Fisher Body Local No. 602, U. A. W. — C. I. O. 52 to counteract this new outgrowth by promoting company unions and making certain concessimmg hoping the men would not want to Join independent unions. Fisher Body1 and hotor Wheel Corporation2 each had a company union; and, according to Mr. Oscar Jade, these firms succeeded in keeping out independent unions for a short time. The Community Welfare Fund announced its intent to enlarge its Board of Trustees about this same time in a notice to the presidents and executives of member agencies of a meeting to be held on October 50, 1955. Three additional seats were added to the Board of Trustees so that representatives of organized labor could be appointed. Xanagement requested that a representative from a company union be placed on the Board.5 Management appeared to want labor representation, or rather representation of company unions, on the Board of Trustees. This request appears to have been a concession by management to the members of the company union in its attempt to stem the growth of independent unions. 1Ibid. 2 . . . , W , , . From the interView with hr. Jonn neid. 5meeting of the Presidents and Executives of the hember Agencies of the Lansing Community Eelfare Fund, October 50, 1955. du‘. 53 hr. John Reid was asked if he knew about this effort by the Fund to get labor representation in 1955 and the significance attached to it. He said the unions were approached but no serious effort was made to gain their participation until 1958. The effort in 1955 represented a change in thinking toward, but not acceptance of, organized labor.1 Three persons were selected in 1955 to the Board of Trustees to represent organized labor. The backgrounds of all members of the Board of Trustees on October 50, 1955, were examined and each Trustee was identified. Not one had a significant background in organized labor which could qualify him as a representative of labor.2 From 1950 to l955,the economic condition of the country became increasingly serious. Unemployment rose to an all time peak of 14,900,000. The average unemploy- ment during the year 1955, the worst year of the de- pression, was 12,654,000 persons. In 1954 and 1355, the From the interView Wltfl hr. John Reid. 2Those members on the Board of Trustees, Community Jelfare Fund of Lansing, on October 50, 1955, were: hr. h. E. Jilson, Dr. L. G. Christian, hr. Charles Largeson, Mr. Henry Reniger, hr. Herbert Greer, hr. Louis hositchek, Mr. F. a. Reade, Dean H. B. Dirks, Dr. XcCune, Judge Sam Street Hughes, Kr. Dorr Shotwell, and hr. Frank Lamphier. 54 average number of unemployed persons was between ten and eleven million.1 As was noted earlier, Lansing industry was tied closely to the automobile industry. 'Its product is one of the more durable of consumer goods. Sales of durable goods decline sharply in a depression.2 Lansing, there— fore, experienced a growing unemployment problem early in the 1950's. Mass lay-offs and unemployment created an acute situation for the flelfare Fund. The year 1950 began a decade of financial problems. Loss of revenue through general unemployment was not the only difficulty facing federated fund raising. Giving to charity is an easy matter for people when money is plentiful and there is confidence in the future, but the wages of the persons who retained their jobs in the 50's were low. Any money beyond that spent for the necessities of life was kept by those people still working for their own protection against unemployment. lEveline M. Burns. The American Social Securipy System. Boston: Houghton hifflin Co., 1959, p. 9. 2“. . _ ,., , , . . Jilliam heston hcrherson. Laoor Relations £2 the Automobile Industry. flashington, D. C.: The Brookings Institute, 940, p. 10. 55 The Fund's dependence on contributions from all people of the community was dramatically demonstrated by this huge loss of revenue and was another reason, in addition to those already cited, for the enlargement of the Board of Trustees. The year 1955 was the poorest financial year for the Fund.1 Agency budgets tumbled, and services were curtailed. At the same time demands for direct relief rose beyond what could have been given by the agencies even in the best year of the Community Helfare Fund. Some persons who were in dire need were turned away or were given such little help that it was inconsequential. The public welfare agencies also were swamped with more demands than they could meet. The state and county public welfare funds were quickly depleted. The Federal government loaned money to the states. On May 12, 1955, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, established by the Wagner-Lewis Act, was put into effect. It did away with the loans to the states and raised the standards of direct relief.2 The Act also established the role of lg . . oee appendix I. 2 a - ~- I u 1 ° 7-\ 1 - ’YT artnur P. hiles. an Introauction to ruolic welfare. / “7‘ __ Boston: D. 0. Heath Company, 1949, p. 221. \n Oi he Federal government in public welfare. There was some feeling by persons in Lansing that the Federal government through this act was putting itself in competition with the Community Chest and the voluntary social services. hember agencies brought considerable pressure on the Community Uelfare Fund to raise more money. The records of the Fund from 1950 to 1955 reveal that some of the agencies threatened to withdraw, and, in one instance, an agency did drop out for a period of six months. The public relations of the Community Helfare Fund were poor. The persons who were not helped by the agencies or who had received help only after they were destitute directed their hostility toward the Fund. Neither the agencies nor the Fund could explain the helplessness of their position to the people needing assistance. The nature of the situation was too emotionally charged to be explained or understood at the verbal level. hany of the people who sought help were workers who had been contributors to the Fund. The attitddes which developed in this period persisted long after the crisis had passed. Hhen the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional, the provisions protecting labor were reestablished in the National Labor Relations Act of 1955, frequently called the Xagner Labor Act. rganized labor \J 57‘ renewed its drive to organize the industrial workers. The A. F. of L. had failed to organize the basic industries: automobile, steel, rubber, 1d others. The Committee of Industrial Organization, a militant faction which had formed within the A. F. of L., rejected the A. F. of L. methods of organizing industrial workers and advocated more aggressive measures. At the National A. F. of L. Convention in 1955, the advocates of these new policies were defeated by a small margin. The C. I. 0., led by John L. Lewis, continued its plans to organize the basic industries. The A. F. of L. Executive Council suspended the unions participating in the C. I. O. and later expelled them from the Federation.1 In 1955 a change in company policy by the General motors Corporation discontinued payroll solicitation.2 This was a severe blow to the methods used by the Com- munity delfare Fund to solicit its many contributors. The reason for the action taken by General Motors appears to have been part of the Corporation's attempt to prevent unionization by C. I. O. in its plants. 1Lloyd Reynolds. pp. cit., p. 105. 2Minutes of the Michigan Conference of Community Chest Executives, June 24, 1955. 58 General motors Corporation was a primary target for C. I. 0. because of the Corporation's successful resistance tO‘outside unionization. The Corporation's company unions met the requirements of the Wagner Act. Abolishment of payroll deduction, a source of friction and hostility toward management, was a demonstration to the company unions that the Corporation was responding ,to the demands of the workers without their having to be unionized. Members of the Fund Board of Trustees were caught in an unenviable position. Most Trustees had invested much of themselves into making the Fund a success. They did not want to see the Fund disintegrate. At the same time, some of these same Trustees were faced with the threat of unionization in their own fields of business and were compelled to resist this threat. The Community Welfare Fund was caught in the middle of the dispute between labor and management and was the loser no matter which side happened to be winning at a given moment. Employment in the automobile industry was and is still subject to sharp seasonal declines with low employ- ment occuring prior to model changes. In 1955 the dates 1a . . . . l l . From the interView Witn mr. John neid. for introduction of new models were switched from winter to fall.1 The shift of dates in the automobile industry meant the Campaign fell immediately after the automobile workers had been idle for a six or eight week period. In 1956 the Campaign dates were moved from the fall of the year to the spring. The stated reason for moving the dates was that local conditions were as good or better in the spring of the year as in the fall.2 In December of 1956, after a prolonged strike, C. I. 0. won recognition from General motors as the barbaining agent for workers in all plants.5 In 195 labor-management relations were marked by more strikes and violence. The sit—down strike was introduced as a weapon. The automobile industry appealed to Governor Frank Murphy to use the kicnigan Eational Guard to evict the strikers from those plants where sit-down strikes were in progress. Although the sit—down strike was il- legal, and later was so decided by the courts, the Gdard was used only to maintain peace and order without making any attempt to evict the strikers. The fact that an l Jilliam hasten hcrherson. on. cit., p. 9 -—‘- —--—- Minutes of a meeting of the 1357 Campaign Committee, 'f‘ -. "N. —.- .A "‘ l.-, K ’\ T,-,'- v..- - IV -~— " 2.1'. VOLLIUUJilLJ .. 6.1.1 are E Lula Oi Jullblli-m} , J £11.18 1 , 3)6 o 5Thomas Greer. on. cit., p. 155. administration friendly to organized labor was in office at that particular time is regarded by many as the most important factor in the success of the C. I. O. in organizing the automobile industry.1 Lansing had its period of labor unrest. In 1957 a labor holiday was staged in Lansing and was marked with parades and demonstrations by members of organized labor. A sit—down strike occurred at the Reo Iotor Car COmpany C) in the fall of the same year.“ Lansing felt the weignt of another deg ression in 1958. In May of 1957, eighteen Lansing industries employed 18,855 persons. In May of 1958, the same eighteen industries employed 8,807 persons who were working shorter hours. The number of contributors to the Com- munity Welfare Fund dropped from 28,919 in 1957 to 15,271 in 1958.5 Another reason for the sharp decrease of contributors was the action of organized labor which stopped in-plant . . . . . 4 . , . soliCitation of its membership. The unions were naVing lLloyd G. Reynolds. 00. cit., p. 104. _d..-._— 2 . . ., ., . From the interView Witn mr. Thomas Borst. 5Annual Report, 1957-58. Lansing Community Jelfare Fund, Inc. 4From an interview on April 8,1955, with Kr. Archie Perry, a pest member of the Board of Trustees of the Greater Lansing Community Chest irom U. A. u. - C. I. 0. Local No. 602, Fisher Body. 61 a difficult time holding their membership, as is always the case in the time of a depression. The union member- ship and leadership did not think the Fund was a worthy cause and decided not to contribute. In the mind of the worker, the Fund was something which had always been sponsored by management.1 The Community welfare Fund was again caught in the middle of labor-management strife. Many members of the Fund Board of Trustees, who, had they not been on the Board, would have been merely onlookers in the labor- management struggle, were deeply concerned about the industrial conflict because of its adverse effects on the Fund. It appears from the records that the Board members who were not part of the industrial picture initiated the move to take direct action to involve labor on the Board.2 Management no longer controlled the industrial situation, and it was necessary for the Fund to obtain the cooperation of organized labor. On June 27, 1958, at the Annual Meeting of the Fund, the Board of Trustees was enlarged from twelve to fifteen members. 1From the interview with Mr. Thomas Borst. 2Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Com- munity Welfare Fund of Lansing, June 2, 1958. 62 Letters were sent to A. F. of L. and the industrial unions, inviting them to participate on the Board. The A. F. of L. responded favorably to the letter and named three men1 from whom the Board immediately selected Mr. Frank Shaw. Mr. Reid was asked to comment on the letter he had written to the Board in which he designated the three candidates for board membership. Mr. Reid said the Fund people wanted to select the representative of labor themselves, but he would not agree to such a plan. Finally it was agreed that the Lansing Federation of Labor would suggest several names from which the Fund Board could make a selection.2 The response from Local #182, U. A. 3., reJected the Board's request for labor representation: Local $182, International Union United nutomobile workers of America, which speaks for the majority of the Citizens of Lansing cannot support or cooperate with the Community Jelfare Fund, Inc., for the following reasons: 1. The policy of the Community Jelfare Fund, Inc., is a policy of class collaboration for the purpose of aiding certain institutions and charities. do are against class collaboration knowing that our interests and the interests of our exploiters are irreconcilably opposed. l H n . , From a letter to 1r. J. J. naynard, Chairman of the Nominating Committee, from 1r. John Reid, Secretary-Treasur— er of the hichigan Federation of Labor, July 15, 195B. 2. . . . . . - r ._ From the interView with hr. John field. o\ \N 2. We have stopped the forced contributions of our people in the shops, and it is clear that the object of your proposal is to find a way to screw money out of the workers with our consent. Here we to accede to your request labor would have two representatives on a board of twenty- three. It is obvious that in practice the policies of the Community Welfare Fund, are rigidly con— trolled by business, financial and industrial leaders who use the fund as a well oiled protective device to give as little money as they can. we note that time and again terrific drives are made to get the workers and small salaried people to give money away out of proportion to their ability, and at the same time tenderly protect corporations from doing likewise. Ne are amazed by the presumption which asks us, who are squeezed dry before any relief is extended, to sucoor out of our meager earnings the under- privileged human wreckage of the industrial system and a host of piddling charities. We are all underprivileged, and we are not responsible for the wreckage. It is not our system. 5. We are opposed to private charities holding that it debases both giver and receiver. We believe that insofar that the institutions aided by the Community Welfare Fund, Inc., are of value to the worker, that they be financed by taxation based on the ability to pay. fie believe that the problem of public health can be solved only by some form of compulsory health insurance.1 . . . The Board, on the advice of Mr. Adolph Germer, President of the Michigan Industrial Council and Michigan Director for the C. I. 0., and Mr. George A. Krogstad, State Commissioner of Labor and Industry, left the vacancy 1From a letter to Gordon S. Bygrave, President of the Board of Trustees, Community flelfare Fund of Lansing from hr. Leo Feldspausch, Recording Secretary of Local #162, U. A. 6., August 27, 1955. 64 unfilled. These two men had indicated that Local $182 did not speak for all of the U. A. 3. members and that in a short time it was expected the U. A. d. would be willing to cooperate with the Community delfare Fund.l Local #182 was involved in the internal conflict of the U. A. W. in 1958 and 1959. Dissension within the Inter- national Union led to a factional dispute. Mr. Homer Martin2 was President of the U. A. w. at the time of the split and had the support of the leaders of Local #182. When the break did come, hartin led his followers back into the A. F. of L., and Local #182 became an affiliate of the Federation.5 The immediate problem of the Community Chest in 1958 and 1959 was one of interpretation of the purposes and goals to the hourly rate worker. "In general, their brief against the Community Chest is as follows: not enough democracy in employee solicitation, objections to payroll deduction, lack of representation on Community 1Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees, Lansing Community Welfare Fund, November 7, 1958. 2{Jilliam Heston thherson. 9p. cit., p. 18-22. 5From the interview with Kr. Oscar Wade. 65 Chest and agency boards, and lack of faith in accomplish- ments of the Chest and its agencies." A leader from management, Lr. L. F. Cotes,2 was responsible for the firétt action taken to involve the industrial unions in the Community Chest in 1941 and 1942. he had the necessary experience in labor-management relations and the respect of organized labor with which to make a resolute effort to obtain the support of the industrial unions. Mr. Cotes represented a change in the thinking and attitudes of management in the direction of a more positive acceptance of trade unionism. Mr. Cotes had many talks with the representatives of the C. I. O. locals. From the records the conferences appear to have taken on the aspects of a collective bargaining session. Organized labor had several demands, 3— :19. The Greater Lansing Com— 2Mr. Cotes was referred to uany tires by persons interviewed for this study. Lr. nrchie ferry said til at Mr. Cotes was iI;strumental in getting C. I. 0. into the Community Chest. Lr. Cotes sat in on most of the bargaining in his own plant, Lotor Jheel. He was a good man. Ihere was never a major strike at Lctor Jneel. Lr. {mamas 301 st commented too that there was no serious strike at motor Ineel. Dr. Ernest 3. Larper said that Lr. Cotes reflected a different attitude by management. Mr. John Reid re- marked that Mr. Cotes was a good salesman and took great pride in accomplishing what he set out to do. and the Community Chest wanted labor's full support. In the end the three U. A. 3. - C. I. O. locals, #602, #650, and #6521 agreed to support the Chest. Local #182, U. A. W. - A. F. OI L. did not pledge itself to endorse the Chest at this time. Ironically, Local #182 was the bargaining agent in the Motor wheel Corporation, the firm for whom Mr. Cotes worked. Mr. Reid said in his interview that he too talked with the men from Motor Wheel in an attempt to get them to endorse the Community Chest. Each of the three union locals was given the right to appoint a man to the Chest Board, appoint delegates to the Ingham County Council of Social Welfare, and to be represented on the campaign committee and in the campaign organization. In return, each union local promised to give its full support to the Community Chest and to interpret the purposes of the Chest to its members.2 Several things had occurred to bring about this agreement: 'I' f . C. I. 0. Local #602 is the Fisher Body Local. U. A. H. - C. I. 0. Local #650 is the Reo Local. ’. C. I. 0. Local #652 is the Oldsmobile Local. 2From a copy of a letter dated March 12, 1940, to Dean H. B. Dirks, President of the Greater Lansing Community Chest, from Mr. M. F. Cotes, Campaign Manager 1940-41. 1. Organized labor had become a power in the community. 2. Attitudes of both organized labor and manage- ment had changed to permit the two antagonists to work together. 5. The depression of the 1950's was ending and the two opponents could think of something besides survival. 4. Leaders of organized labor recognized that unions were part of the community and wanted to support community values. Lansing was ahead of some other communities in working out the relationships between the Community Chest and organized labor. Some communities were still trying to work out satisfactory agreements after florld Jar II.1 In 1942, the Community Chests and Councils of America and the two major labor organizations worked out an agreement which stabilized labor—chest relations and gave direction from the national level.2 Dr. Ernest B. Harper of Michigan State College served on the Chest Board of Trustees from 1940 to 1955, the early adjustment years of chest-labor relationships. In describing how the representatives of organized labor were accepted in the Board of Trustee meetings of the Community Chest, he 1From an interview with Mr. Richard C. Hicks, Executive Director of the United Community Chest of Ingham County, March 18, 1955. 2Supra. page 12, Chapter III. stated that the atmosphere at first was one of cold politeness, almost like a business meeting. He compared it with what he imagined a bargaining session to be like. Gradually the coldness disappeared and was replaced by a warmer, more friendly feeling. The members of labor and management and the others on the Board learned there were fewer basic differences among themselves than had been thought to exist. There was never an occasion, according to Dr. Harper, where labor representatives lined up solidly on one side of an issue and management on the other. It was his feeling that labor representa- tives presented many constructive ideas and suggestions and were able to make significant contributions to the Community Chest.l Chest-labor relations were far from static in the 1940's. However, the degree of conflict in the 1950's was never reached. Just as the first bargaining sessions . . . 2 between a company and a newly cert1f1ed un1on are 1g . . . , a i w L From an 1nterv1ew with Dr. mrnest B. narper, head of the Department of Social Work at Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, April 14, 1955. 2 ‘V 1 .—‘ Leonard R. Dayles and George strauss. The Local Union. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955, p. 15. likely to be the most difficult, so it seemed to be with chest-labor relations during the first years. And just as collective bargaining tends to mature with the passage of time, so did the relationship between the unions and the Community Chest.l Mr. John Reid thought that one of the most difficult tasks faced by the trade unions after they were asked to participate in the Chest was to get the union representa- tives on the Boards and Committees to attend meetings. The representatives told hr. deid that it was no use to go to the meetings because they were outnumbered and could not get what they wanted. hr. Reid's answer was they could not hold their gains if they did not participate.2 Mr. Archie Perry, the first union representative from Local $602, Fisher Body, needed no stimulation to attend Chest Board meetings. His name appears in the minutes of most of the Board meetings from 1940 until 1947 when he left the Board after six consecutive years of member- ship. At various times he served on the Nominating Com- mittee, as a Board officer, as Chairman of a budget panel, and on the Campaign Committee. In an interview with him 1Lloyd G. Reynolds. op. cit., p. 188. * 2 , . . . , -_ .. From tne 1nterv1ew w1th mr. John Re1d. he remarked that he felt a little strange in the meetings at first, but after everybody got to know each other better, they all discovered they were after the same things. He said he enjoyed working on the Chest Board and wished that more people from organized labor could have had the experiences he had. Several factors worked toward strengthening positive chest-labor relationships; one of them was the entry of the United States into World War II. The attack from the outside had a solidifying effect on the internal affairs of the nation. Both C. I. O. and A. F. of L. Iade no- strike pledges and fully supported the war effort. The period from 194C to 1945 was one of abnormal production, profits, and employment favorable to growth and prosperity of organized labor and management.1 Labor-management relations were fairly stable in Lansing with the no- strike pledge. The ceilings on wages and prices produced collective bargaining for fringe benefits which strengthened the unions.2 In organizing the workers of a plant into a union, solidarity of the union was built at the expense of lThomas Greer. pp, cit., p. 140. 2 From the interview with Mr. John Reid. 71 management. After the union had gained entry and the hostility toward management had expressed itself, some- times in a strike, the process of developing more stable labor-management relations could move into a new phase. This is a difficult generalization to make because much depends on the individual character of the company and the union involved.1 The letter to the Community Welfare Fund from Local #182 in 1958 shows the hostile phase of the process. The stabilizing period of the process occurred between 1940 and 1945, permitting a change in attitudes to take place. A change in the objectives of management was another extremely important factor in the development of chest- 1abor relationships. Mr. Lloyd G. Reynolds states, "This hostility (of management toward unions) has traditionally expressed itself in forcible opposition, but is now being forced increasingly by law and public opinion to take the form of peaceful competition. The strategy of competition usually continues for some years after a company has been unionized. Gradually, however, management turns toward lLeonard R. Sayles and George Strauss. 32. cit., pp 0 14-240 "1 Mr. n. F. Cotes, positive acceptance of the union. the man who was directly responsible for securing organized labor's cooperation in the Community Chest in 1940, seemed to personify the positive acceptance of labor by management. In 1945, a joint committee of the A. F. of L. and the C. I. 0. sponsored the kick-off of the Third War Bond Drive. The expenses of the Bond Drive were submitted to the War Chest Board of Directors by Mr. John Lyons, representing A. F. of L., and Mr. Archie Perry, repre- senting the C. I. 0.2 The War Chest Board refused to pay the expenses. This refusal precipitated a resolution from Fisher Local #602 U. A. W. - C. I. O. withdrawing its support from the Community Chest and all agencies connected with it and instructing its men to resign from all the boards of directors.5 A letter from Kr. Archie Perry with his resignation from the Chest Board was received, but the other Trustees refused to accept it? 1 2From a letter to the Board of Directors of the Ingham County War Fund from Mr. John Lyons and Er. Archie Perry, September 10, 1945. Lloyd G. Reynolds. 9p. cit., p. 168. 5A Resolution from Local urn“ rOUci the Greater Lansing Community s f U. A. W. - C. I. O. to Che t, October 12, 1943. 4%” . O ‘ n ‘ minutes of a meeting of tne Board of Directors of tne Greater Lansing Community Chest, October 12, 1943. 75 The break in the relationship was repaired, and the Joint labor committee request was included in the Jar r, . AM . .v an 1 Chest Budget in 1;.4. Industrial relations again exerted their influence on the Community Chest, but to a lesser degree. In 1?46, Fisher Local foO2 refused to endorse the 1947 Fund Campaign because of the labor record of one of the chairmen in the campaign organization. The local said, however, there ’3 would be no active resistance against the fund drive.c U. A. K. - C. I. 0. had gone on strike in all General Lotors plants in late 1945; the strike proved to be a long involved negotiation lasting into early 1946. Fisher Body was on strike a month longer than any other General motors plant because local grievances could not be settled.5 The effects of the prolonged strike carried over into campaign planning. The year 1946 was a time of many changes in labor— chest relationships. The a. F. of L. Building Trades workers and the construction industry of Lansing were 1Report of Expenditures of the Ingham County far Fund, 1944. 2”. . . . minutes of meetings of tne 1947 Campaign Committee, Greater Lansing Community Chest, October 1 through October 14, 1946. 7‘. 3From an interview with hr. archie Perry. 74 recognized by a special Building Trades Day during Red 1 The Industrial Division of the Feather Campaign Week. Campaign became known as the Labor and Industry Division. The first discussion about labor staff on the Community Chest took place.2 The Community Chest became extremely conscious of representation on its Board of Directors in 1947 and 1948.5 The board members, with the exception of the six repre- sentatives of organized labor, were nominated and elected by the Board on the basis of the segment of the community of which they were representative. If community wide representation is a real concern, the one certain way to determine if a board is representative is to analyze 1,. . , A . n . Minutes of meetings of tne 1747 Campaign Committee, Greater Lansing Community Chest, October 1 through October 14, 1946. 2 O I o n Minutes of a meeting of the 1947 Campaign Committee, Greater Lansing Community Chest, August 1, 1946. 5Mr. Richard C. Hicks became the Executive Director of the Community Chest on April 1, 1948. Much of the emphasis on wider representation can be traced to his philosophy that the Community Chest is a community project; everyone should give, eve:yone should work, and every- one should be represented. This is borne out by his emphasis on developing the "expanded budget committee," 1955 to 1955, as developed in Budgeting, a pamphlet made up by the United Community Chest of Ingham County describing the budgeting process. 75 the membership and identify from where its members come. This is precisely what the Board of the Community Chest did in 1949.1 Organized labor was the only group, with the exception of the Council of Social Agencies, which was given the right to appoint its own representatives to the Board. The length of terms for representatives of organized labor changed from three years to one year. Organized labor did not gain representation on the boards of the member agencies of the Community Chest as quickly as on the Community Chest Board. The Chest Board voted to contact the agencies to see if more labor representation could be secured. 1See Table 3. ’3 LThere was no statement found in the records which indicated when this change of lengths of terms took place. Perhaps a statement by Mr. Archie Perry has bearing on this change. He said he felt that some persons like him- self were asked to serve on the Board for too many years. He felt one man should not serve too long in order that more men could be given an opportunity to be on the Chest Board. Opinion of the rank and file union members has a great influence on union leaders. The leader who has many contacts and appears to become too friendly with management may be accused of "selling out" his union if he makes a decision which the rank and file members can construe as not being in their favor. See L. R. Sayles and G. Strauss. T§_ Local Union, Chapter 15, "The Bank and File View Their Union,”‘pp. 222-257. Also see a. 1. Rose. Union Solidarity, pp. 147-151. "(A) motion was made by Dr. (Ernest B.) Harper, (and) supported by hr. (Elton) Tubbs, that the President of the Board should address a letter to member agencies who do not have labor representatives on their presen Boards of Directors and should suggest to them the desirability of having representation from labor to help ip the operation of their agency-— carried." The President of the Board of the Community Chest, Mr. Paul A. hartin, sent the letters on January 17, 1949. The Board records of five agencies which had been members of the Community Chest for many years-—four could be considered charter members--were examined in order to find when representatives of organized labor had appeared on their boards of directors. One agency reported that no representative of organized labor has ever been on its board; another agency reported its first labor representative was appointed to its board in 1952; another reported 1950; another reported 1949; and the other re- ported 1942.2 lflfi‘ o 1 1— ~ minutes of a meeting of the Board of directors, Greater Lansing Community Chest, January 1, 1949. 2The agencies which were sampled were the Y. n. v. n., The Family Service Agency, the Boy Scouts, the Visiting Nurses Association, and the hichigen Childrens Aid Society. An interesting question arose in making this sample. Should a group be represented on an agency board because it is an important group, or should it be represented on an agency board because some member of the group is vitally interested in that agency? This study was not designed to search into this question, but the issue is noted because it may involve a basic principle concerning community representation on agency boards. '77 From this small sample it can be seen that a cluster appears around the years 1349 through 1952, which would indicate the letter from Kr. Hartin of the Chest Board might have had some affect on the thinking of the agency boards.1 I From 950 to l? the United Community Chest of U1 U1 3 Ingham County experienced tremendous growth. A merger of the Greater Lansing Community Chest and the United Health and lelfare Fund of Ingham County was realized in 1950. One of the members of the Community Chest Com- mittee working on the consolidation of the two organiza- tions reported the merger was being demanded by large industry, organized labor, and the doWntown business firms.2 These demands for unity in fund raising made possible the merger. Labor—chest relationships became more firmly established during the period from 1950 to 1955. The educational lSee Summary of Board membership Study of thirty-two health and welfare agencies in Ingham County. Study by A. Richmond, Social Hork Department, hichigan State College, April, 1355. 2”. . . . minutes of a meeting of the executives of member agencies, Greater Lansing Community Chest, August 5, 1950. 78 programs which we re initiated in 1950 by or anized labor and co-sponsored by the Community Chest for the purpose of informing labor members of community welfare services developed until the Chest in 1054 emploJe d two labor representatives as full—time staff persons. Organized labor through the A. F. of L. and the C. I. O. has joined with other groups and citizens to further the development of united giving and coordination of community welfare services. Representatives of labor unions serve on the Chest board, on committees, on agency boards, to some degree, and actively participate in fund campaigns. Organized labor has become a source of sub- stantial financial contribution in the community and has begun to play a role in community planning. The local unions and central bodies have stimulated their members to learn more about the community and its problems and have attempted to broaden membership participation in organized social service programs. In a recent publication of the Labor Participation Department of the Community Chests and Councils of America, 1 See appendices V and VI for pro ram reports of the Labor Education Staff of the United Community Chest of Ingham County 79 Inc., the following principles were enumerated.1 1. Health and welfare services should be developed on the basis of recognized needs. In such a development, organized labor has a definite and unique contribution to make. 2. Successful federation involves a sound and representative budget process. 5. Federation in this field should weld together contributors, member agencies and people needing services in a teamwork program with assurance of due consideration and fair treatment for everyone. 4. Planning and financing of community services need to go hand in hand, with neither in control, but with both working together. 5. Labor finds valuable training and experience in democratic processes on a community level in this field. 6. Public welfare services are of great concern to labor and they should be included in the planning phase of federation. 7. Labor is for more inclusive federation of campaigns for voluntary support, provided representation of labor is brought in at the beginning and is progressively developed. 8. Annual solicitation of voluntary contributions at the place of employment, preferably with payroll deduction, is favored by labor as a common sense method of campaign, provided the voluntary factor is stressed and provided labor and management Join in the plan. These principles indicate organized labor's present attitude toward participation in Community Chest and lLabor Looks gt Federation, a pamphlet published.by the Labor Participation staff, Community Chests and Councils of America, Inc., New York, no date. Council activities and are to a great degree reflected by the central bodies of both the C. I. O. and the A. F. of L. in Lansing. These principles have been accepted to a lesser degree by some of the local unions and by some rank and file members who have had the experience of participating in a community service activity. Generally, organized labor subscribes to an attitude of cooperation. host labor leaders and rank and file members agree to cooperation but not active participation to the extent stated in the principles listed above. In this attitude members of organized labor are not greatly different from members of other organizations where almost everyone supports community services but only a small percentage participate and play an active role. Chapter V S MLARY AND CCNCLUSIOFS A. Summary Organized labor and the community are not separate entities. The union members who compose organized labor live in and are part of the community as much as those people who do not belong to labor unions. Labor move- ment leadership has recognized that a "we-they" attitude is inconsistant with its own goals. Some leaders who represent the trade unions have taken an active role in promoting, planning, and financing community welfare services. Labor's original role of protesting decisions of the Community Chest has changed to positive participation in formulating Chest's decisions. The purpose of this role is not an attempt to promote good public relations; rather there has been a realization that if organized labor does not carry its full share in the community, it cannot expect other groups to carry their shares. Labor also realizes that if it does not participate in solving community service problems, those problems will be solved by others, perhaps in a manner which labor does not approve. Since "community problems” really means 82 "problems of people," including members of trade unions and their families, labor has a genuine desire to share in the improvement of the community. A definite contribution to tne development of the Community Chest has been made by organized labor. The Chest has benefittcd from th new leadership represented on its Board and committees. depresentation from labor unions has broadened the base of participation in Chest and Council activities. _ 1.} Labor representation on the Chest and Council poards and committees serves as a two—way channel for communicating with a large number of individuals. These representatives are more aware of the needs of the ran; and file union membership and have an opportunity to identify needs and press for action in the appropriate committees. In turn these leaders may interpret social work services available in the community as well as the limitations and the means for modifying these services. The education programs co-sponsored by organized labor and the Community CheSU and directed by the labor education staff of tne Community Chest are too new to permit evaluation of their impact. These programs are means by which the function and purpose of the Chest, the Council, and the social welfare agencies may be interpreted to the individual union members. The success of tne Community Chest's fund raising efforts is dependent upon the c00perative effort of all groups in the community. From 1935 to 1940, when organized labor, industrial management, and business did not accept their economic dependence upon one another, the Community Chest was not able to raise sufficient funds to meet the campaign goals. The 1958 and 1959 fund campaigns demon- strated conclusively that organized labor was needed for successful federated financing. True, the campaigns were hampered by an economic depression, but it was labor's negative participation during those two years that kept the Chest from approaching the campaign goal more closely. As Lansing grew in complexity, awareness of the interdependence of its segments developed; and the Com- munity Chest began to recognize its dependence upon all groups. The Chest Board of Directors moved for a unity of action and purpose in the area of community fund raising and acted to involve organized labor in the Com- munity Chest. The Chest Board of Directors is made up of persons who are representative of groups and areas of the community. Labor has insisted upon and has been given the right to appoint its representatives directly to the Chest Board. There are other large organizations and groups in the community which cooperate with and are represented on the 84 Chest but who do not select the persons who will represent them. That organized labor has been accorded this singular privilege indicates the influence of the trade unions. From 1919 to 1955, labor did not take part in the history of the Community Chest and Council. From 1933 to 1958, there was some discussion to involve labor in the Community Chest. In 1958, labor actually participated in the Chest's activities. Since 1940, there has been close cooperation between organized labor and the Chest. The newest emphasis in the development of this relation— ship has been the addition of labor staff in 1954. Another trend which seems to be evolving is a greater extent of participation on the part of labor in Council activities and on agency boards. B. Conclusions There are many forces which affect chest-labor relationships. On the basis of this study it seems reasonable to suggest the following conclusions: 1. The Chest and organized labor were able to enter into a cooperative relationship only after labor and management were able to work out satisfactory relation— ships on the larger scene. 2. Chest-labor relations are much firmer, and co- operation between the Chest and organized labor is greater during times of economic prosperity. 85 W 9. In periods of stable labor-management relations, the labor-chest relations tend to be more stable. The converse is also true; when labor—management relations are strained, labor-chest relations reflect this strain. 4. Organized labor was invited to participate in Community Chest activities only after it became a sub- stantial force in the community. 5. Organized labor seems to have a priority rating for its many responsibilities. Labor could participate actively in the Community Chest only after its energies and resources were no longer concentrated in the economic Sphere of its activity. 6. Because of organized labor's participation in Community Chest activities, the Chest has obtained new leadership with which to carry on its activities and a larger reservoir of potential leadership. 7. The effect of industrial strife on the Community Chest has made the members of the Chest Board acutely aware of the importance of harmonious labor-management relations. hany Chest Board members have gained a greater understanding of the complex problems of labor-management relations through the participation of organized labor along with management in the Community Chest. 8. The neutral arena of the Community Chest serves as a factor to condition attitudes of those persons participating. Labor leaders have learned more about leaders from management and vice-versa. Community leaders who participate in the Chest but are not part of either labor or management have learned more about both groups. 9. The Community Chest base of contributors has been broadened by the active participation of organized labor in Chest activities. 10. It appears that the Community Services Council did not play a decisive role in the process of the involvement of organized labor in Community Chest and Council activities. The Chest was developed prior to the Council and was concerned primarily with fund raising. Even after the Council was organized, it was part of the Chest; and the Chest Board of Directors made the decisions for both. Only recently did the Council acquire a separate Constitution, By—laws, and Board of Directors. Some of the large social forces which played a role in the process of the involvement of organized labor in the Community Chest and Council activities have been examined, identified, and described. However, in making an ex post facto study such as this, there is the limitation of the lack of intimate familiarity with the personalities who were part of the process. Without this intimate knowledge the description of the process has a tendency .I....p .I. . I II I :I' II I _u lull-ll It] ll'ul' llll'ili Ill liq-l. II‘III I. -I- i ‘ .4 to develop into a bare recital of facts, oftimes incomplete and possibly misleading. Because this study is largely a view in retrospect, it is possible only to show "why" and "what" took place and not the "how" of the process. As is usually the case, research has raised more questions than it has answered. This study was a general exploration of the involvement of organized labor in the Chest and Council. It has made a significant contribution to the writer's knowledge of organized labor and the Com- munity Chest and Council and has opened up many avenues for further formal and informal investigations. A more intense examination of some of the smaller areas of Chest-labor relationships could be highly productive. For example, the Labor and Industry Division of the Fund Campaign might show some of the process described in this paper on a smaller scale. In such an investigation it will be necessary for the investigator to be more than a keen observer; he must be an active participant so as not to miss the understanding and the true intentions of the participants. The presence of an observer is too often an influence which distorts the real circumstances of the situation. APPEN D EC APE-LSDIDIX I Greater Lansing ..__.._. __ -. _. Community Chest Campaign history Year K0. of Campaign nm't no. of ‘.C.J.S.a agencies Goal fledged subscribers 1919 11 90,000.00 64,451.00 3,000(Approx) 192 11 72,500.00 90,558.00 6,517 1921 14 95,000.00 107,336.00 6,545 1922 15 109,500.00 109,080.00 9,488 1925 14 128,000.00 152,952.00 11,550 1924 15 140,000.00 155,890.00 15,925 1925 14 146,000.00 147,777.00 17,088 1926 15 162,000.00 151,534.00 15,162 1927 14 165,000.00 165,000.00 16,449 1928 16 185,700.00 170,502.00 17,440 1929 17 200,000.00 204,025.00 19,519 1950 17 215,500.00 194,058.00 18,945 1951 17 215,000.00 198,000.00 19,852 1952 17 185,000.00 125,662.00 16,863 1955 17 167,000.00 107,105.00 12,555 1954 17 155,012.00 127,922.00 25,024 1955 17 147,562.00 147,715.00 25,061 1956 17 105,711.00 106,417.00 25,501 1957 17 170,754.00 155,175.00 28.919 1958 18 175,112.00 122,965.00 15,271 1959 18 159,945.00 119,546.00 15,748 1940 18 129,700.00 146,958.00 25,692 1941 18 149,500.00 165,000.00 1942b 173.6C 294,600.00 284,074.00 94,600.00 1945 18&15 504,975.00 166,755.26 1944 105,061.um(int)d 151,580.00 a . Ingham County Jar Fund. bBeginning in the 1942 Campaign and continuing through the 1947 Campaign, the Community Chest was part of the Ingham County Ear Chest. members of the Community Chest. CThe first number refers to the agencies regularly to the various war time appeals. The second number refers dThis amount was raised during the interum campaign which covered a seven month period. 9O APPJHDIX I continued Year No. of Campaign Am't No. of I.C.”.F.a Agencies Goal Pledged Subscribers 1945 16a22 542,900.00 406,741.00 152,935.00 1946 14e19 574,995.00 551,212.00 151,590.00 '1947 160080 268,492.00 265,156.69 29,644 19,000.00 1948 16 287,124.00 298,594.55 54,152 1949 18 575,585.00 518,148.61 55.215 1950p 18 525,000.00 542,685.05 59,845 1951 47 596,000.00 441,951.18 45,574 1952 49 550,000.00 556,111.04 45,098 1955 51 650,000.00 695,580.00 52,618 1954 50 705,541.00 768,120.76 6,561 1955 55 774,406.72 781,187-17 52,785 e”. . . . l u - . michigan Jnited ;ealth and relfare Fund agenCies became members of the United Community Chest of Ingham County. 91 AP} 1:11». DIX II PLSSIanl OF TED BCiAD CanrAIGK mifigGSRS Community Celfare Find ofi gunsins Ray Potter 1920 Arthur 3. Eurd Ray Potter 192 L. ialpn Carrier may Potter 1922 J. L8lpn Carrier Ray Potter 1925 M. Ralpn Carrier Ray Potter 1924 Bruce 3. Anderson day Potter 1925 Bruce D. Anderson Clarence E. Bement 1926 jarle E. Goodnow Donald 3. Bates 1927 J. Gottlieb Aeutter Donald 3. Dates 928 J. deard doe Aarle fl. Goodnow1929 J. ndward Roe Earle J. Goodnow 1950 Donald E. Bates Louis J. Kay 19 51 Donald L. bates Charles 3. smith 1952 Donald L. Bates George F. Conway 1955 Charles B. vOlllh,‘OOd Bruce E. Anderson 1954 Howard Fett henry 3. Jilson 1955 Charles H. Barber henry E. Wilson 1956 Charles L. McCuen Frank H. Lamphier 1957 Clarence C. Carleton Greater Iansin; Community Chest Frank E. Lampnier 195- Clarence C. Carleton Gordon S. Bygrave 1959 Rt. Rev. Lsgr. Jonn A. Gabrials Gordon S. Bygrave 1940 Rt. Rev. 88 5r. John A. Gabrials Henry B. Dirks 1941 Mervin F. Cotes Jillian Collinge 1942 Mervin F. Cotes John Affeldt, Jr. 1945 V. Carl Havens Dewitt d. Hoadley 1944 John 8. Laynard Dewitt R. hoadley 1945 V. Carl Havens Donald E. Bates 1946 Floyd 8. icCartney Edward G. Hacker 1947 Fred n'ohlert, Jr. Floyd 8. McCartney 1948 C. bart Benny Paul A. Kartin 1949 Ronald E. Keger Unite d CorvunitvC e t _i In;h8m County Paul A. Kartin 1950 Jilliam i. Carlyon 1951 Selwey 1952 lortcr,ur195 dev. George Jillidm J. Hubert 3. Bates 1354 henry Crouse 9J5 Jillian J. Porter, Jr. Russell . rnillips Henry 3. Crouse Dorr J. Gunnell Ricnard P. Lyman Iilliam searle B‘ Sr. ,8 v. APPEJDIX I II Record of nyecutive Directors Frank 8. Arbaugha October 22, 1919 to 88818 0. Izanta October 24, 1919 to Victor S. Coodward August 1, 1927 to F. M. throom July 1, 1929 to George E. Kirkendall July 1, 1954 to Joseph D. Gibbon January 1, 1958 to L. B. Jeffried Ray 21, 1940 to Robert N. Schunke July 1, 1944 to Richard C. Licks April 1, 1948 to am W ' - - - -» ' oerveo Without congensation. llllllll‘lll | III ”I lili1l|lflifl I APPENDIX v 95 E AT AM I HAVE 53 A.F. OF L. LOCAL UNIONS TO SERVICE AND HAVE ATTENDED 25 DIFFERENT LAOOR UNION MEETINGS AT VARIOUS TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO EXPLORE PROGRAM. IT Is A "MUST" THAT I ATTEND EVERY MEETING POSSIGLE OF THE LANSING FEDERATION OF LASOR AND THE BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL. THEY EACH MEET THO TIMES EACH MONTH. COME AND SEE TOURS ARE YET To BE DEVELOPED. LADOR MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE MEETINGS ARE OEING NEGLECTED. IT IS APPARENT THAT I NEED MORE HELP FROM THESE COMMITTEES. IN REGARD TO THE RED FEATHER SERVICES, INFORMATION IS SEING DEVELOPED EVERY DAY. THE REST EXAMPLE OF THIS ARE THE CASES THAT HAVE COME DIRECTLY THROUGH MY OFFICE THE PAST YEAR - 70 IN NUMDER. OTHERS HAVE COME FROM OUR HELFARE COMMITTEES IN THE PLANS, CONSTRUCTION JOBS, AND UNIONS. WE HAD VERY GOOD LUCK IN.GETTING OUR LOCAL UNIONS AND MEMBERS TO USE THE CHRISTMAS CLEARING BUREAU LAST YEAR, AND ARE GETTING "ORE INTERESTED DELEGATES TO DECONE MEM- BERS OP AGENCY BOARDS AND BUDGET PANELS THROUGH OUR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM. I WE FEEL IT IS IMPORTANT THAT OUR STAFF MEMBER ATTEND OUR NATIONAL WORKSHOP EACH YEAR, AS HELL AS THE MEETING OF THE MICHIGAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. WITH REGARD To OUR COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM, HE FEEL THAT THE COMMUNITY CHEST SHOULD STAND THIS EXPENSE INSTEAD OF THE LOCAL UNIONS AS THEY DID THIS YEAR, HOPING THIS CAN SE TANEN CARE OF IN THE FUTURE. DURING LAST FALL'S CHEST DRIVE, I HORNEO AS STAFF DIRECTOR HITH THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECTION 4, AND HE THINN HE DID A GOOD JOB. THERE IS, HONEVER, MORE EDUCA- TIONAL HORN TO BE DONE HERE. I FEEL THERE IS STILL ANOTHER SOURCE OF GIVING To SE REACHED AND SERVICES TO RENOER IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, SUCH AS THE HOUSE FIELD AND SMALL CONTRACTORS. THE STAFF OF THE COMMUNITY CHEST IS EXPLORING THIS FIELD AND TRYING To HORN OUT A PROGRAM. THIS HILL SE A TREMENOOUS JOB IN MY EYES. I HAVE A COLUMN IN THE LANSING INDUSTRIAL NEHS UNDER "KNOH YOUR AGENCIES, AND I TRY TO HAVE SOMETHING IN EVERY ISSUE. SOMETIMES, HOHEVER, DEADLINES ARE CLOSE AND I MISS GETTING IT IN. WE HAVE SEEN GETTING MANY COMMENTS ON THIS PHASE OF OUR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FROM ALL OVER. AT OUR NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM IN SAN FRANCISCO, I AM TO SIT ON THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PANEL AND GIVE A IO MINUTE TALN OF OUR GOOD PROGRAM HERE IN LANSING. OUR COMMUNITY NURSERY PROJECT AT 920 NC MAIN STREET IS SLGHING DOHN AT THE PRESENT TIME. WE HAVE HAD LAOOR LINED UP FOR THIS PROJECT FOR SOME TIME THROUGH OUR LANSING BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL. BUD FONLER OF THE FOHLER ELECTRICAL COMPANY IS SECURING THE ELECTRICAL MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT, AND THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM HAS TANEN OVER THIS PART. PART OF THE PLUMSING MATERIALS HAVE SEEN LINED UP AND ROSS MDFFITT IS HORNING ON THE REST. AFTER A LOT OF HORN PERTAINING TO LUMOER AND OTHER SUPPLIES, IT FELL DACN ON THE SHOULDERS OF BOG RYAN AND MYSELF, .ARD HE RAVE SECURED ABOUT HALF OF THE MATERIAL NEEDED AT THE PRESENT TIME. HAROLD MINGUS AND ROSS MDFFITT HILL HORN HITH DICN HICNS ON THE COMMUNITY NURSERY HHILE I AM GONE. HAROLD MINGUS HAS THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM FROM THE CARPENTERs' UNION ALL SET FOR THIS PROJECT AND THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE SOME HORN. FOR THE COMING YEAR HE HANT TO HAVE AN ACTIVE LASOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE THAT HILL MEET AT LEAST FOUR TIMES. I NANT To DEVELOP COME AND SEE TOURS, LAOOR MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE MEETINGS, AND I HILL NEED HELP IN THIS PROGRAM. I HILL FOLLOH THROCCH ON EACH CASE FOR THIS IS THE MOST VALUAGLE INFORMATION FOR OUR COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM. NO NAMES, HOHEVER, ARE EVER USED. TOM BORST “AV '0‘: A E' me I c’nl'l. DeanpapuvAQ-Iue 'I APPENDIX VI 94 REPORT: MAY 5, I955 UNITED COMMUNITY CHEST OSCAR MADE LASOR PARTICIPATION CIO LASOR STAFF COMMITTEE AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD SY ME, LASOR STAFF HAS ESTABLISHED AT THE CHEST LEVEL TO CARRY OUT THE STATED PROGRAMS OF THE CIO ANDIAGF. OF L. IN COMMUNITY SERVICE HORN AND FO. PURPOSES HHICH MIGHT SEST SE EXPLAINED SY A REVIEH OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS PERTINEHT THERETO. To GUOTE FROM REVERENO GEORGE SELHAY, HHO HAS CHAIRMAN OF THE LASOR STAFF COMMITIE ESTASLISHED TO LOON INTO THE FEASISILITY OF LASOR STAFF, "LASOR STAFF HOULD INTER- PRET THE AGENCIES TO THE PEOPLE, HOULD SE PERSONS FOR REFERRAL, HOULD SE CALLED AND HOULD ASSIST IN REFERRALS, HOULD ANSHER GUESTIONS AS THEY ARDSE." ACCORDING To RICHARD HICNS ON THE STAFF FUNCTION IN HIS SUGGESTIONS FOR THE ESTASLISHMENT OF , THE LASOR PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE, . . . . ."IT HAS NECESSARY TO ESTASLISH A SPE- CIAL PROGRAN.DESIGNED To CONTACT A LARGE SEGMENT OF OUR POPULATION - NAMELY, ORGA- NIzEO LASOR GROUPS, A.F. OF L AND CIO. SUCH A PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO INTERPRET / To A LARGER PORTION OF OUR SOCIETY THE SERVICES OF THE AGENCIES AND HOH THEY SHOULD; SE USED. THE PROGRAM TO SE SUCCESSFUL MUST AOEOUATELY INTERPRET THE VALUES OF THE I AGENCIES AND SRING ASOUT A MAINTENANCE OF OUTSTANDING SUPPORT. IT IS DESIGNED ALSO To SRING MEMSERS OF THIS GROUP INTO SERVICE IN ASSISTING THE AGENCIES, SOTH ON BOARDS OF DIRECTORS AND VOLUNTEERS IN PROVIDING SPECIFIC SNILLS IN CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAMS OF RESPECTIVE AGENCIES." FOLLOHING IS THE INTERPRETATION OF DUTIES I AND PURPOSES SO OUTLINED SY THE CIO ON A STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL: To PROMOTE A SETTER UNDERSTANDING AMONG MEMBERS OF CIO OF THE SERVICES AVAILASLE THROUGH THE AGENCIES OF THE COMMUNITY CHEST; TO PROMOTE AND CONDUCT THE CIO COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM DESIGNED TO ACGUAINT MEMSERS OF ORGANIzED LASOR HITH SERVICES EXISTING IN THE COMMUNITY; To OPERATE AS LIAISON SETHEEN THE CHEST AND THE AGENCIES AND THE ORGANIzEO LASOR GROUPS; TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE THE GREATER SUPPORT OF CHEST AND AGENCIES THROUGH THE ANNUAL APPEAL FOR FUNDS; AND TO SERVICE AND ASSIST THE MEMBERS OF CIO AND OTHER CITIZENS IN CASE OF NEED FOR SERVICES. AS EVIDENCE OF INPLENENTATION OF THE FOREGOING I SUDNIT THE FOLLOWING REPORT OF ACHIEVEMENTS: I. INTERPRETATION OF AGENCY SERVICES HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH - A) ATTENDANCE AT DOIENS OF UNION MEETINGS AND PERSONAL CONTACTS VITN KEV UNION LEADERSHIP. S) NUMEROUS PICTURES AND SENS STORIES IN THE LANSING LASOR NEHS AND ALL STATE JOURNAL POSSISILITIES. C) CONDUCTED ONE "COME-AND-SEE" TOUR OF TOP UNION PERSONNEL. PICTURES HERE TANEN ON THE TOUR AND SOME HAVE SEEN USED IN PUSLICITY. D) DEVELOPED THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF "RED FEATHER" LETTERS FOR MASS DISTRI- SUTION TO CIO MEMSERSHIP PIN-POINTING SPECIFIC AGENCY SERVICES. 2. COMPLETED THO COUNSELLOR TRAINING SESSIONS IN HHICH SELECTED MEMSERS LEARNED OF E SERVICES AND ARE EGUIPPED TO SE OF SERVICE To FELLOH MEMSERS. GRADUATED NINETEEN COUNSELLORS IN DECEMSER AND HILL GRADUATE FIFTEEN ON MAY IO. (A COPY OF COVERAGE OF LOCAL UNIONS IS PROVIDED). THESE COUNSELLORS ARE OF GREAT ASSISTANCE IN IN TURN INTERPRETING SERVICES TO FELLOH HORNERS AND IN MANING DIRECT REFERRALS TO AGENCIES, THUS RELIEVING THE LOAD OF CENTRAL REFERRAL. \.. 3. HELD LAST SEPTEMSER - THE ANNUAL CIO-CSC COMMUNITY SERVICES INSTITUTE HHICH SROUGHT TOP UNION PEOPLE TOGETHER HITH AGENCY PERSONNEL ON A PERSONAL CONTACT SASIS. THE INSTITUTE SERVED ALSO TO POINT UP THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AGENCIES AND GAVE THE AGENCY PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN OF OUR CIO PROGRAM. 4. WORNING, FUNCTIONING COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEES HERE ESTASLISHED IN THO LOCAL UNIONS AND IN THE CIO COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE HAS DONE AN OUT- STANDING JOS IN UNDERTANING AND SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETING FOUR MAJOR PROJECTS DURING THE PAST YEAR. THO OF THESE PROJECTS HERE A SURVEY AND REPORT OF CON~. TACT HITH THE WELFARE DEPARTMENTS OF INGHAM, CLINTON, SHIAHASSEE, AND EATON COUNTIES RE: REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR ASSISTANCE, ETC., AND THE NATIONAL Clo-COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE PILOT PROJECT OF RETIRED WORKERS. 5. IN REGARD TO AGENCY SOARD REPRESENTATION, HE HAVE ESTASLISHED OR REALIGNED CIO REPRESENTATION TO PROVIDE FOR MEMSERSHIP ON THREE MORE IMPORTANT SOARDS - NAMELY, RED CROSS, MENTAL HEALTH, AND MICHIGAN CHILDREN'S AID. IN ADDITION, IT IS HELL \ To NOTE HERE, ALSO, THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF ONE LOCAL UNION COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE HAS IN THE PAST YEAR SEEN CHOSEN AS PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF ANOTHER IMPORTANT AGENCY. 6. YOUR CIO STAFF REPRESENTATIVE HAS HANOLED MORE THAN 200 REFERRALS FOR SPECIF:C AGENCY SERVICES. THIS FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DIRECT REFERRALS MADE SY CIO COUNSELLORS THEMSELVES. 7. SUPPLEMENTARY HORN INCIDENT TO THE ASOVE PROGRAMS INCLUDED THE PREPARATION OF THO DIRECTORIES FOR THE USE OF CIO COUNSELLORS; A MANUAL FOR USE HITH THE PRE- RETIREMENT FORUM PHASE OF THE RETIRED HORNERS PROGRAM; A REPORT OF THE HHOLE RETIRED WORKERS PROJECT IN LANSING; AND THE DESIGNING AND PRODUCTION OF A SPE- CIAL POSTER USED TO DIRECT ATTENTION TO THE COUNSELLOR PROGRAM IN THE PLANTS. STATEMENT OF PROGRAM FOR THE COMING YEAR IN ORDER TO EXPAND OUR PROGRAM AND TO FURTHER THE PURPOSES REFERRED T0 TO A GREATER DEGREE, PLANS FOR THE COMING YEAR ARE PRESENTED BELOW: ' l. _A FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE RETIRED WORNERS' PROGRAM, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION‘; TO THE DROP-IN-CENTER PHASE AND THE PRC-RETIREMENT FORUMS. / 2. WILL ESTASLISH NEH PROJECTS FOR THE CIO COUNCIL-COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. 3. WILL INSTITUTE A TRAINING SERIES FOR GRADUATE COUNSELLORS DESIGNED TO PERPETUATED INTEREST AND TRAIN FOR AGENCY BOARD MEMBERSHIP. f/ . WILL HORN TOHARD ESTABLISHING CSC COMMITTEES IN MORE LOCAL UNIONS. . WILL ATTEMPT TO EXPAND CIO REPRESENTATION ON AGENCY SOARDS. . PLAN FOR THE INITIATION OF THE FIRST CIO-CSC GENERAL MEETING TO INCLUDE THE REAL TOP PEOPLE IN UNIONS AND IN THE COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE FOR A SETTER MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND RELATIONSHIP. I. 5 6. WILL CONDUCT A FALL CIO-CSC INSTITUTE. 7 \ 8. WILL CONDUCT THO MORE SERIES OF COUNSELLOR TRAINING CLASSES, HITH EMPHASIS ON ; ENPANOING PARTICIPATION TO SOME OF THE SMALLER PLANTS. 7 -2- 9. O. I. WILL ARRANGE FOR A SUMMER ”COME-ANO-SEE” TOUR. WILL CONTINUE TO HORN HITH THE INTERNATIONALS AND LOCALS TO ESTASLISH THE PRIN- CIPLE OF "CO-PARTNERSHIP" HITH THE COMPANIES IN CAMPAIGN PLANNING AND PARTICI- PATION IN SOLICITATION. ‘\ \ WILL PROVIDE FOR THE SELECTION OF SELECT LOCAL UNION HEMBERS TO ATTEND THE OH: ‘\ HEEN EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY SERVICES TRAINING INSTITUTE AT PORT HURON SUMMER SCHOOL? WILL ASSIST AT CAMPAIGN TIME IN TROUBLE SPOTS AND IN ORIENTATION AND ORGANIzING TO PROVIDE FOR BETTER PARTICIPATION OF CID MEMSERSHIP. \ BIBLIOGLMLPHY BIBLIOCflAPK Articles "A. F. of L. Interest in Health and Uelfare Shown by Executive Council Report at Convention." National Newsletter. Labor Participation Department, Community Chest and Councils of America, Inc., a. F. of L. Edition, Vol. VIII, Ko. 5, November, 1954, p. l. "A. F. of L. -MGK Teamwork Sparks Cam aign Drives Across Ration." Rational Newsletter. Labor Participation Department, Community Chests and Councils of America, Inc., A. F. of L. Edition, Vol. VIII, No. 6, December, 1954, p. l, 4. Biemiller, Andrew J. "Labor, Too, Wants Better Com- munities." Family Service Highlights. Vol. EV, No. 6, June, 1954, pp. 83-89. Blackbuun Clark N. "Cur Gains and Our Goals." Famil Service highlights. Vol. XV, No. 12, December, 1754, pp. 145-149. Bryson, Lyman. "The Meaning of Community Leadership." Adult Leadership. Vol. VI., Kovember, 1953, pp. 9—6. "Important Facts for Your City and Town." Labor Participation Department, Community Chests and Councils of America, Inc., New York, n.d. "Labor." Time hagazine. march 21, 1955, pp. 20-25. "Labor: What's Behind the News and What's Ahead." Fortune. January, 1955, pp. 47-48, 50, 55. Mandel, Arch. "Can Social Hork Afford Less Vision Than Industry." Family Service Highlights. Vol. XV, No. 12, December, 1954, pp. 151—152. Layo, Leonard. "Community Planning for Health and Nelfare." Proceedings of the Lational Conference of (Te. 0 . 'T‘IY ' 0 fr) _ , 1'; (j. .R '55, “’f ooc1al Hora. 1,;a, pp. LLC‘L/Oo Nesbitt, Albert J. "Hanagement' s Enlightened Interest <’ in Social fielfare." £4F1L£ Service 1i hlL hts. Vol. XV, N0. 6, June, 1954, pp. 81—65. Yewste tter, E. I. ”The Social Intergroup Jerk Process." Proceedin~s of the Eational Conference pg Social Lork. 1/47, L'l). #203- 170 Saoin, n. H. "Family Service Co-Operates with Ianagement and Labor." "nily Service Highlights. Vol. LV, No. 6, June, 1954, pp. 59—91. 3011, Matthew. ”A. F. of L.'s National Community Relations Committee.” a. F. of L. News Reporter. SeptezAber, 1954. '3 ‘I- .JOODLS ley, John Cameron and 3. Snitmore. Industrial Relations doook, 5rd ed., Rev. Cnica;o: The Dartnell :ress, l99c. .218 Ran Barnard, Chester I. Cr3 ation anc' Ianeiement. Cambridge: Harvard University ”re ss, I949 Senge, Edward J. Postwar Supervision Conference 10. 11; Industrial Relations. New fork: Lational Formen's Institute, Inc., 1945. Burns, Eveline h. The Arerican Social Security System. Boston: Houghton Lifflin Co., 1949. Cantrel, Hadley and D. hatz. "The Problem of Lethod." Industr111 Conflict, é Psychological Interpretation. Ed. by George N. hartnann and Theouore hewconb. New York: The Gordon Co., I929. Commons, John R. et al. history 2f Labour in the United States. 2 vols. New York Tne Kacnillan Co., laao. Davis, ninzgsley and L. C. Bredemeier and J. Farion, Jr., (editors). Ihodern American Society: Readings in the Problems of Order and Change. Lew fork: fiinenart a Co., Inc., 1948. Gorer, Geoffrey. The American Character. London: The Crescent Press, 943. Green, }.Ielen D. _ Social Cork lTactice in Com munity Org Anizition. Lew iork: Jillian noiroH A Co. l;v 4. , lOO Sayles, Leonard R. and G. Strauss. The local Union. New York: Harper and brothers, 1955. Taylor, Carter. Social and Ielfare Eork in Lansing, Michigan: A Two geek Study. 1927. Pamphl e t 8 Action for a Better Community. National C. I. 0. Com- munity Services Committee, new York, n.d. Budgeting: Irocedures for Appropriation of Chest Funds to kember Agencies. United Community Chest of Ingham County, Lansing, Michigan, n.d. Channels. Labor Participation Department, Community Chests and Councils of America, Inc., Kew York, n.d. CIO-CSC: Some guestions and Answers. National C. I. 0 Community Services Committee, Few York, rev. October, 1955. Design for Givinw: Community Services Program Guide no. 7. national C. I. 0. Community Services Committee, New York, rev. October, 1993. Function oi a Community Services Committee: Community Services Irogram Guide Ho. 1. National C. I. 0. Com- munity Services Committee, New York, rev. June, 1994. Labor Looks at Federation. Labor Participation Department, Community Cnests and Councils of America, Inc., New York, n.d. Labor Representation on Community Agency Boards: Com- munity Services Irogram Guide no. 2? Rational C. I. 0. Community Services Committee, Lew York, rev. June, 1994. On the Alert. Community Chests and Councils of America, Inc., New York, August 17, 1942. Organization of a Labor Participation Committee: Com- munity Services Irobram Guide Lo. 3. national C. I. 0. Community Services Committee, Jew York, rev. October, 1955. 101 Union Counselling: Community Services Program Guide No. 4. Rational C. I. 0. Community Services Committee, Lew York, rev. October, 1953. r1 . . ,~. 'J sterday and Today with the ammunity chests. Community Chests an Councils of anerica, Inc., lj57. Unpublished Katerial A. Eel-)0I'ts Annual deport. Lansing Community Jelfare Fund, Inc., Lansing, Lichigan, 1920. Annual Report. Lansing Community Helfare Fund, Inc., Lansing, Lichigan, 1921. unu, lnc., ltd Annual Report. Lansing Community fielfare Lansing, michigan, 1922. Annual Report. Lansing Community Kelfare Fund, Inc., Lansing, Lichigan, 1925. Annual Report. Lansing Community Welfare Fund, Inc., Lansing, hicnigan, 19:4. Annual Raport. Lansina Community Jelfare Fund, Inc., Lansing, Michigan, 1925. O I Annual Report. Lansing Community Eelfare Fund, Inc., Lansing, Licnigan, 1934—55. Annual Report. Lansing Community Celfare Fund, Inc., 1955-36. Annual Report. ansing Community Xelfare lund, Inc., Lansing, hichigan, 1956-57- Annual Report. Lansing Community Jelfare Fund, Inc., .. ° 7" - ,..._ d7 ,_\_ Lans1ng, micniban, 1yg7—gd. Annual Report. Lansing Community Welfare Fund, Inc., Lansing, Lichigan, 1958—59. President's Annual Report. Lansing Community Welfare >3“ Fund, Inc., Lansing,ffiicnigan, l;_y. rm. 102 Report of Empenditures. Ingham County Jar Fund, Lansing, nicnivan, lge4. Review of 1942 Greater Lansing Communitv Chest Board f Directors Action. Greater Lansinb Community Chest, Lansing, Iichigan, 1947. 3. miscellaneous Board of Directors Book, Lichignn Childrens aid Society, Lansing, hichigan Historv of Community Chest and Campaigns. United Com— munity Chest of Ingham County, n.d. Eerlis, Leo. Address given at the Annual Conference, New Jersey Jelfare Council, asbury Park, Few Jersey, November 2, 1950. Perlis, Leo. "fiorkers Education and Union Counselling." nxcerps of an address given at the hudson Chore Labor School, Jest Park, flew York, August 20, 1943. Richmond, A. Board Membership Study: A Summary of the Characteristics of Boards of Directors and Board members of 52 Health and Jelfare Agencies in Ingham County, Lansing, hichigan. Ingham County Council of Social flelfare in cooperation with Community Chests and Councils of america, Inc., April, 1953. C. Interviews Interview with Mr. Bruce R. Anderson, manager of the hotel Olds, Lansing, Michigan, formerly Fund Campaign Kanager in 1924 and 1925 and Fund President in 1935. February 24, 1955. Interview with Kiss Ruth Bowen, Director of the Childrens Division of the Lichigan State Department of Social Jelfare, formerly Director of the Social Service Bureau of Lansing, Lichigan. February 21, 1955. Interview with Er. Thomas Borst, A. F. of L. Labor Staff, United Community Chest of Ingham County, formerly Business agent of a. r. of L. tainters Local ”4&9. 1439: I I... t .l l I .‘ Ill-ll“... I‘ll-ii III . 1? 105 Interview with Hr. Carle J. Goodnow, former Campaign Lanager of the Lansing Community Welfare Fund in 1926, and former Fund President in 1929 and 1950. February 25, 1955. Interview with Dr. Ernest 3. Harper, He ad of the Department of Social Jork, Lichigan State College, Cast Lansing, hichigan. April 14, 1955. Interview with hr. Richard C. Hicks, Executive Director, United Community Chest of Ingham County. Larch 13, 1955. Interview with Er. Peretz Katz, Executive Secretary, Community Services Council, Lansing, Michigan. April 20, 1955. Interview with Hr. Archie Perry, member of Local {602, Fisher Body, form er representative of that union local to the Greater Lans< ing Community Chest. April 8, 1955. Interview with hr. John Reid, State Commissioner of Labor, formerly Iresident of the Lansing Federation of Labor and the Michigan Federation of Labor. April 1, 1995. Interview with Lr. Andrew Virtue, Business Agent of the Bricklayers Local #51. april 14,13/55. Interview with Hr. Oscar ."ade, C. I. C. Labor Staff, United Community Chest of Ingham County, formerly I'resident of Fisher Body Local ”602, U. n. w. — C. I. 0. april 4, 955- .. .1.-. .I. .w' '3. 1 ‘0‘. .‘l‘. I. '1. a.) "I1111111111111111?