Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:05:26.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manufacturing Power: The Organizational Revival of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1941–1945

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

Andrew A. Workman
Andrew A. Workman
Affiliation:
ANDREW A. WORKMAN is assistant professor of history atMills College in Oakland, California.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the years following World War II, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) regained the political effectiveness it had lost during the New Deal. This article analyzes NAM's resurgence within the context of the rising popularity and political strength of organized business in the postwar period. It argues that NAM's success is only partly explained by external factors, such as the policies of Truman administration and divisions among labor organizations. NAM's renewed ability to shape national affairs resulted from an internal transformation that vastly improved its administrative capacity, and from a change in its public relations and labor policies. These efforts came to fruition when NAM proved able to dominate the proceedings of the 1945 Labor-Management Conference.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 72 , Issue 2: Gender and Business , Summer 1998 , pp. 279 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “What specific proposals can be made for legislation as a result of the Labor-Management Conference?” 28 Nov. 1945 and Ira Mosher, “Report to the Public,” [radio script] both in box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference of 1945, National Association of Manufacturers Papers, Group 1412, Hagley Memorial Library, Wilmington, Del. [hereafter: NAM Papers]; “Report of the President's Labor Conference,” 7 Dec. 1945, box 20, file: Press Releases, NAM Papers; “Significant Features of the Labor Management Conference,” n.d., box 19, file: National Labor-Management Conference, 1945–1946, NAM Papers; Ira Mosher to Horace C. Knerr, 9 Jan. 1946, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference Correspondence, NAM Papers. The key accounts of labor policy during the war include: Harris, Howell John, The Right to Manage: Industrial Relations Policies of American Business in the 1940s (Madison, Wisc., 1982)Google Scholar; Koistinen, Paul. A. C., “Mobilizing the World War II Economy: Labor and the Industrial-Military Alliance,” Pacific Historical Review 42 (Nov. 1973): 443–78Google Scholar; Lichtenstein, Nelson, Labor's War At Home: The CIO in World War II (Cambridge, U.K., 1982)Google Scholar; Seidman, Joel, American Labor from Defense to Reconversion (Chicago, 1953)Google Scholar; Dubofsky, MelvynThe State and Labor in Modern America (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1994), 137–196Google Scholar; Finegold, Kenneth and Skocpol, Theda, “Explaining New Deal Labor Policy,” American Political Science Review 84 (Dec. 1990): 1298–1304Google Scholar.

2 Griffith, Robert, “Forging America's Postwar Order: Domestic Politics and Political Economy in the Age of Truman,” in The Truman Presidency, ed. Lacey, Michael J. (New York, 1989), 60–68, 73–74Google Scholar; Kerr, Clark, “Employer Policies in Industrial Relations, 1945–1947,” in Labor in Postwar America, eds. Warne, Colston E. et al. (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1949), 43–76Google Scholar; Gable, Richard W., “NAM: Influential Lobby or Kiss of Death?” Journal of Politics 15 (1953): 254–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cleveland, Alfred S., “NAM, Spokesman for Industry?” Harvard Business Review 26 (1948): 353–369Google Scholar. On NAM's postwar public relations campaign, see Fones-Wolf, Elizabeth, Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945–1960 (Urbana, 1994)Google Scholar, passim.

3 Bernstein, Barton J., “The Truman Administration and its Reconversion Wage Policy” Labor History 6 (Fall 1965): 215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dubofsky, The State and Labor, 191–194; Lichtenstein, Nelson, The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter Reuther and the Fate of American Labor (New York, 1996), 228–229Google Scholar and Labor's War At Home, 219; Gross, James A., The Reshaping of the National Labor Relations Board: National Labor Policy in Transition, 1937–1947 (Albany, N.Y., 1981), 261Google Scholar; Harris, The Right to Manage, 110–125.

4 Jack Alexander, “Young Man in a Snakeskin Belt” Saturday Evening Post, 28 Aug. 1945, 10–11; Blaisdell, Donald C., Economic Power and Political Pressures (Washington, D.C., 1941), 25–37Google Scholar.

5 On corporate liberals, see McQuaid, Kim, “Corporate Liberalism in the American Business Community: 1920–1940,” Business History Review 52 (Autumn 1978): 342–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McQuaid, Kim, Big Business and Presidential Power: From, FDR to Reagan (New York, 1982), 62–121Google Scholar; McQuaid, Kim, Uneasy Partners: Big Business in American Politics, 1945–1990 (Baltimore, 1994), 18–35Google Scholar; Hawley, Ellis W., “The Discovery and Study of a ‘Corporate Liberalism,’” Business History Review 52 (Autumn 1978): 309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hawley, Ellis W., “A Partnership Formed, Dissolved, and Renegotiated: Business and Government in the Franklin D. Roosevelt Era,” in Business & Government: Essays in 20th-century Cooperation and Confrontation, eds. Frese, Joseph R., and Judd, Jacob (Tarrytown, N.Y., 1985), 187–219Google Scholar. For a more theoretically developed account of corporate liberalism, see Domhoff, William G., “Corporate Liberal Theory and the Social Security Act: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge,” Politics and Society 15 (1986): 297–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar; For a recent critical perspective, see Allen, Michael Patrick, “Capitalist Response to State Intervention: Theories of the State and Political Finances in the New Deal,” American Sociological Review 56 (1991): 679–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Harris, , The Right to Manage (Madison, Wisc., 1982), 3–13, 110–125Google Scholar. On the adversarial relationship between government and business, see McCraw, Thomas K., “Business and Government the Origins of the Adversary Relationship,” California Management Review 26 (1984): 181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dubofsky, The State and Labor, 192.

6 This analysis has its roots in the organizational approach to history. See Louis Galambos, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review (Autumn 1970): 279–290; Louis Galambos, “Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization: Central Themes of the Organizational Synthesis,” Business History Review (Winter 1983): 471–493; Alan Brinkley, “Writing the History of Contemporary America: Dilemmas and Challenges,” Daedalus (Summer 1984): 134; Robert Cuff, “An Organizational Perspective on the Military-Industrial Complex,” Business History Review (Summer 1978): 250–267. For a useful critique of the organizational school see Brian Balogh, “Reorganizing the Organizational Synthesis: Federal-Professional Relations in Modern America,” Studies in American Political Development (Spring 1991): 119–172.

7 Burnham Carter, “Memorandum—Proposed Industry-Labor Conference,” 13 Sept. 1945, and Ira Mosher to Lamott Du Pont, 16 Aug. 1945, and Robert Gaylord to Walter Weisenburger, 6 Aug. 1945, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference Correspondence, NAM Papers. For NAM comment on the idea of an industry-labor conference, see New York Times, 11 Dec. 1941. See also NDMB Executive Session Transcript, 11 Dec. 1941, Entry 25, box 6, 3, National War Labor Board Papers, Record Group 202, National Archives, [hereafter NWLB Papers].

8 On the conference, see Benjamin Stephansky, “The Wartime Industry-Labor Conference of Dec. 17–23, 1941,” Entry 75, box 475, NWLB Papers; Franklin D. Roosevelt to William Batt, 11 Dec. 1941 and William Batt to President [Franklin D. Roosevelt], 13 Dec. 1941, Entry 75, box 474, NWLB Papers.

9 Franklin D. Roosevelt to Gentlemen of the Conference, 23 Dec. 1941, Congressional Record, 15 Jan. 1942, 77th Cong., 2nd sess.: 375.

10 “Statement by the Employer Members of the President's Labor-Industry Conference,” 23 Dec. 1941, Entry 75, box 474, NWLB Papers; interview of Walter White by Benjamin Stephansky, 25 Jan. 1945, Entry 75, box 474, NWLB Papers. On the BAC see, McQuaid, Big Business and Presidential Power, especially chapters One and Two and Collins, Robert M., The Business Response to Keynes, 1929–1964 (New York, 1981), 56–62Google Scholar.

11 William P. Witherow, [President-Elect of NAM] to Frances Perkins, 30 Dec. 1941, box 119, Department of Labor Papers, Office of the Secretary, 1940–1945, National Archives [hereafter: DOL-OS Papers]; Washington Post, 20 Apr. 1942; New York Times, 21 Apr. 1942; NWLB Executive Session Transcript, 21 Apr. 1942, Entry 25, box 12, 37–45, NWLB Papers.

12 Cleveland, Alfred S., “Some Political Aspects of Organized Industry” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1948), 160–221Google Scholar; Gable, Richard W., “A Political Analysis of an Employers' Association: The National Association of Manufacturers” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1951), 230–245Google Scholar.

13 For an analysis of the predominance of large corporations, see Philip Burch, “NAM as an Interest Group,” Politics and Society (1973): 97–130 and Gable, “A Political Analysis,” 190–198, 231–242. Gable reports that 125 companies had effective control of the NAM executive committee between 1933 and 1946. Of these, for which figures were available, none employed fewer than five hundred workers and nearly half employed more than five thousand.

14 Henry D. Steinmetz, “Mr. Private Enterprise,” Liberty, 1 Feb. 1947, 23–24, 198, 100; Weisenburger Obituary, New York Times, 24 June 1947; Philip Burch, “NAM as an Interest Group,” Politics and Society (1973): 97–130 contains an account of NAM's support during the New Deal Era. See also Tedlow, Richard S., “The National Association of Manufacturers and Public Relations during the New Deal,” Business History Review 50 (Spring 1976): 25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Fones-Wolf, Setting Free Enterprise, 16–31. See Gable, Richard W., “NAM: Influential Lobby or Kiss of Death?” Journal of Politics 15 (1953): 254–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a description of NAM's internal organization.

15 Tedlow, “The National Association,” 32–34; “NIIC Annual Report,” 1945, Series 3, box 842, file: NIIC 1941–1943, National Industrial Conference Committee Papers, Group 1411, Hagley Memorial Library, Wilmington, Del. [hereafter: NIIC Papers].

16 Gross, The Reshaping of the National Labor Relations, 72–109; Tedlow, “The National Association of Manufacturers,” 22–45; Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise, 16–31.

17 Harris, Right to Manage, 108.

18 W. B. Weisenburger to Ira Mosher, 8 Mar. 1945, box 3, file: Committee on labor Relations, 1942–1945, NAM Papers; “Report of Special Labor-Management Committee Meeting,” n.d. box 3, file: Special Drafting Committee, NAM Papers.

19 W. B. Weisenburger, “Analysis of Basic Public Relations Problem Facing NAM,” 13 Jan. 1945, Series 3, box 842, file: NAM Executive Committee, NIIC Papers; W. B. Weisenburger to C. E. Harrison, 19 Jan. 1945, Section 3, box 844, file: Key Documents, 1942–1945, NIIC Papers.

20 L. B. Morris, National Subcommittee on Labor Legislation, “5-point Labor Legislative Program,” box 3, file: Labor Legislation 1942–1945, NAM Papers; Saul Harvey, “Minutes of the Industrial Relations Policy Committee,” 26 Oct. 1943, and “Labor Legislative Program,” 27 Oct. 1943, box 2, file: Industrial Relations Policy Committee, 1942–1945, NAM Papers.

21 Gable, “A Political Analysis,” 275–279.

22 “Recommendations Regarding the Integration of NAM and NIIC Public Relations Functions,” 13 Nov. 1944 and “A New Public Relations Policy for NAM,” 13 Nov. 1944, series 3 box 842, file: NAM Executive Committee, NIIC Papers; Walter Weisenburger to C. E. Harrison, series 3, box 844, file Key Documents 1942–1945, NIIC Papers.

23 C. E. Harrison to Mr. Weisenburger, “Analysis of NIIC Program and Recommendations for 1945,” 12 Oct. 1944 and W. B. Weisenburger, “Points for Discussion with Mr. Wampler,” 29 Jan. 1945, series 3, box 844, file: Key Documents 1942–1945, NIIC Papers.

24 “A ‘New’ C. of C,” Business Week, 8 Aug. 1942, 19–20; “Johnston Upheld,” Business Week, 20 Mar. 1943, 14; Collins, The Business Response to Keynes, 88–96; Kerr, “Employer Policies,” 63–67.

25 “Eric Johnston,” Current Biography, 1945; Jack Alexander, “Young Man in a Snakeskin Belt,” Saturday Evening Post, 28 Aug. 1945,10–11. See Johnston, Eric A., America Unlimited (Garden City, N.Y., 1944)Google Scholar, for an overview of his industrial relations ideas.

26 Blaisdell, Donald C., Economic Power and Political Pressures (Washington, D.C., 1941), 25–37Google Scholar. Johnston's corporate liberalism has been dismissed by a number of historians as one, not terribly deep and two, having limited support among other businessmen. Whether or not both assertions are correct, it does not follow that his position was unimportant. He was able to push a liberal program through the Chambers board and to get himself elected its president four years in a row. More importantly, his very advocacy of a deal with labor, if combined with government and union support, was potentially very damaging to the conservatives' position. NAM certainly thought so. See Dubofsky, The State and Labor, 191–193; Lichtenstein, Labor's War at Home, 219–220.

27 “Chronology of Chamber of Commerce-NAM Contacts Regarding Labor-Management Relations,” n.d., “Joint Conferences between U.S. Chamber of Commerce Labor Relations Committee and NAM Committee on Labor Legislation Steering Group,” n.d., and “Labor-Management Conference,” box 3, file: Special Drafting Committee, NAM Papers.

28 “Ira Mosher,” Current Biography, 1945.

29 “Report of Special Labor-Management Committee Meeting,” n.d.; “Analysis of Seven Points of Proposed Labor-Management Charter,” 25 Apr. box 3, file: Special Drafting Committee, NAM Papers; W. B. Weisenburger to Ira Mosher, 8 Mar. 1945, box 3, file: Committee on Labor Relations, 1942–1945, NAM Papers.

30 Ira Mosher to Eric Johnston, 9 Mar. 1945 and “Chronology of Chamber of Commerce-NAM Contacts Regarding Labor-Management Relations,” n.d., box 3, file: Special Drafting Committee, NAM Papers.

31 New York Times, 29 Mar. 1945.

32 Franklin D. Roosevelt to Eric Johnston, William Green and Philip Murray, 29 Mar. 1945, OF 407, box 4. Franklin D. Roosevelt Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y. [hereafter: Roosevelt Papers]; New York Times, Chicago Sun Times, Wall Street Journal, 30 Mar. 1945; PM, 29 Mar. 1945.

33 To Weisenburger, “NAM Action on Management-Labor Charter: Proposed Staff Recommendation,” 5 Apr. 1945, box 20, file: Labor-Management Charter, NAM Papers.

34 Sybyl S. Patterson, “Highlights of March 21st Meeting of Special Board Committee on Labor Relations,” box 20, file: Labor-Management Charter, NAM Papers; “Report of Special NAM Board Committee on Labor-Management Relations,” 16 and 25 Apr. 1945, box 3, file: Special Drafting Committee, NAM Papers.

35 C. E. Harrison, Jr. to Cloud Wampler, 31 May 1945 and C. E. Harrison, Jr. to Charles E. Coe, 13 June 1945 and “Form Letter to Entire Membership on NAM Action with Respect to Labor-Management Charter,” n.d., Section 3, box 844, file: Labor Cooperation, NIIC Papers.

36 “Minutes of NAM Committee on Labor-Management Relations,” 13 June 1945, box 3, file: Committee on Labor-Management Relations, 1942–1945, NAM Papers; New York Times, 13 June 1945.

37 “Significant Features of the Labor-Management Conference,” box 19, file: National Labor-Management Conference, 1945–1946, NAM Papers.

38 “Minutes,” NAM Committee on Labor-Management Relations, 13 June 1945, and C. E. Harrison to Walter Weisenburger, 19 June 1945, box 3, file: Committee on Labor-Management Relations, 1945, NAM Papers.

39 New York Times, 1 Aug. 1945; “Statement by the President Proposing Measures to Insure Industrial Peace in the Reconversion Period, 16 August 1945” in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Harry S. Truman, 1945, 220; Bernstein, Barton J., “The Truman Administration and its Reconversion Wage Policy,” Labor History 6 (Fall 1965): 215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 “Significant Features of the Labor-Management Conference,” 18 Dec. 1945, box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference, 1945–1946, NAM Papers; Ira Mosher to Lamott Du Pont, 16 Aug. 1945 and Robert Gaylord to Walter Weisenburger, 6 Aug. 1945, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference Correspondence, NAM Papers.

41 Raymond Smethurst to Ira Mosher, 24 Aug. 1945, and Raymond Smethurst to W. B. Weisenburger, 31 Aug. 1945, box 20, file: preconference, NAM Papers.

42 Raymond Smethurst to W. B. Weisenburger, 31 Aug. 1945, box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers.

43 Raymond Smethurst to Ira Mosher, 24 Aug. 1945, box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers.

44 “Report of the President's Labor Conference,” Dec. 1945, box 20, file: Press Releases, 7, NAM Papers; Edwin Witte, “Notes on Labor-Industry Policy Statement of President Truman” 18 Aug. 1945, box 74, file: US NWLB History, Witte Papers.

45 Raymond Smethurst to Weisenburger, 31 Aug. 1945, box 20 file: Preconference, NAM Papers; Raymond Smethurst to Joyce O'Hara, 14 Sept. 1945, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference Correspondence, NAM Papers.

46 Raymond Smethurst to Ira Mosher, 24 Aug. 1945, box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers; “Chronology of the President's National Labor-Management Conference,” Nov. 1945, box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference 1945, NAM Papers; New York Times, 7 Sept. 1945. Douglas would later have a distinguished career as senator from Illinois.

47 NWLB Executive Session Transcript, 9 Aug. 1945, Entry 25, box 182, 129–139, NWLB Papers; “Statement by the President Proposing Measures,” 220–222; William Davis to Harry S. Truman, 12 Aug. 1945, Entry 16, box 163, Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion Papers, National Archives; “Presidential Press Conference,” 18 Sept. 1945, p. 3–5, PSF, Press Conference File, box 62, Papers of Harry S. Truman, Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri, [hereafter Truman Papers]; Harry S. Truman, Diary, 20 Sept. 1945, PSF, box 333, p. 4–6, Truman Papers; “Executive Order 9617, Transfer of Certain Agencies and Functions to the Department of Labor,” 19 Sept. 1945, OF 30, Truman Papers; Arthur Vandenberg to Lewis Schwellenbach, 6 Aug. 1945, PSF: Lewis Schwellenbach, Truman Papers; Edwin Witte, “Notes on Labor-Industry Policy Statement of President Truman,” 18 Aug. 1945, p. 1–3, box 74, file: US NWLB History, Edwin Witte Papers, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisc.

48 “Executive Council Minutes,” 23 Oct. 1945, American Federation of Labor Papers, George Meany Memorial Archive, Silver Spring, Md.; Lichtenstein, Labor's War at Home, 216–219; J. A. Livingston, “Was the Labor Crisis Necessary?” Saturday Evening Post, 26 Jan. 1946, 17, 89–91.

49 R. S. Smethhurst to Ira Mosher, 4 Sept. 1945, R. S. Smethurst to Ira Mosher, 12 Sept. 1945, and C. J Symington “Agenda,” 10 Sept. 1945, all in box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers.

50 James E. Dempsey to Matthew J. Connelly, 15 Oct. 1945, PSF: Labor, Truman Papers.

51 “Proposed Agenda, Representation and Procedures for the National Labor-Management Conference submitted by the Agenda and Preparatory Committee,” in The President's National Labor-Management Conference, November 5–30, 1945 (Washington, D.C., 1946), 29–35Google Scholar.

52 “Significant Features of the Labor-Management Conference,” 18 Dec. 1945, box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference, 1945–1946, NAM Papers; “The Public Relations Strategy of the Labor-Management Conference,” n.d., box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers.

53 Forest E. McGuire to Management Members Labor-Management Conference, 1 Nov. 1945, NAM Papers, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference; “Significant Features of the Labor-Management Conference,” 18 Dec. 1945, box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference, 1945–1946, NAM Papers; Harris, Right to Manage, 112–113.

54 “What is NAM” (New York, 1946)Google Scholar; T. M. Brennan to State and Industrial Relations Associations, 28 Sept. 1945; T. M. Brennan to Ira Mosher and Walter Weisenburger, 4 Sept. 1945, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference Correspondence, NAM Papers; “Mr. Mosher's Report to NAM Board of Directors,” 28 Sept. 1945, box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers.

55 McQuaid and Harris see the BAC as the leader in forming this program but it appears that NAM was calling the tune. Moreover, the BAC did not launch a full scale campaign to influence the conference, indeed, it did not have the capacity to do so. McQuaid, Big Business and Presidential Power, 138–142; Harris, Right to Manage, 113–114. See also Collins, The Business Response to Keynes, 77–114.

56 Collins, Business Response to Keynes, 117–118, 120–122; “Middle-Roaders,” Business Week, 4 May 1946, 16–17. Johnston's subsequent actions at the conference lead one to assume that the attempt to use his popularity to gain support for a moderate labor relations program was his strategy all along.

57 “Calendar of Pre-Conference Events,” NAM Papers, box 20, file: Preconference; “Meeting of Industry Delegates and Alternates,” 2 Nov. 1945, box 20, file: Reports of Conference Committees, NAM Papers.

58 W. B. Weisenburger to Mr. Harrison, 1 Oct. 1945, “Meeting of Staff Committee on Labor-Management Conference,” 3 Oct. 1945, “Minutes of Staff Committee Meeting on Labor-Management Conference,” 17 Oct. 1945, Sybyl S. Patterson to Cliff Harrison, 10 Oct. 1945, and “The Public Relations Strategy of the Labor-Management Conference,” n.d., all in box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers.

59 Leo Teplow to Ira Mosher, 16 Oct. 1945, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference Correspondence, NAM Papers; Meeting of Staff Committee on Labor-Management Conference, 3 Oct. 1945; Holcombe Parkes to Fred Smith, 5 Nov. 1945, box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers.

60 “The Public Relations Strategy of the Labor-Management Conference,” n.d., box 20, file: Preconference, NAM Papers; “Significant Features of the Labor-Management Conference,” 18 Dec. 1945, box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference, 1945–1946, NAM Papers.

61 Robert J. Smith Associates, “Radio Presentation of ‘The Management Point of View’,” Dec. 1945, box 20, file: Press Releases, NAM Papers.

62 New York Times, 6 Nov. 1945; “Labor Feuds at Conference Give Management a Trump,” Business Week, 10 Nov. 1945, 7; “Lewis-Murray Feud Blurs Start of Labor-Management Meeting,” Newsweek, 19 Nov. 1945, 70–72; Alfred Friendly, “John L.'s Monkey Wrench,” Nation, 17 Nov. 1945, 514; Bernstein, Barton, “The Truman Administration and Reconversion Wage Policy,” Labor History 6 (Fall 1965): 229–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zieger, Robert, The CIO, 1935–1955 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1995), 217–218Google Scholar.

63 New York Times, 11 and 15 Nov. 1945; The President's National Labor-Management Conference, November 5–30, 1945 (Washington, D.C., 1946), 1–24Google Scholar; Taylor, George W., Government Regulation of Industrial Relations (New York, 1948), 219–244Google Scholar.

64 New York Times, 15 Nov. 1945; Leo Teplow, “Industry Delegates Evening Meeting,” 14 Nov. 1945, box 20, file: Reports of Conference Committees, NAM Papers; Leo Teplow, “Status of Working Committee Reports,” box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference, 1945, NAM Papers.

65 “Comments on Deficiencies of Present Committee Reports,” 19 Nov. 1945 and “Executive Committee Minutes,” 19 Nov. 1945, box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference, 1945, NAM Papers; New York Times, 21 Nov. 1945.

66 New York Times, 22 Nov. 1945.

67 NAM, “Press Release,” 24 Nov. 1945, Entry 26, box 13, Office of the Secretary, Department of Labor Papers, Record Group 174, National Archives; New York Times, 21, 22, 25 Nov. 1945; “Evening Meeting of Management Group,” 29 Nov. 1945, box 20, file: Reports of Conference Committees, NAM Papers.

68 “The Position of Management,” 13 Nov. 1945, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference, NAM Papers; “Significant Features of the Labor-Management Conference,” box 19, file: National Labor-Management Conference, 1945–1946, NAM Papers; “Report of the President's Labor Conference,” 7 Dec. 1945, box 20, file: Press Releases, NAM Papers; Tom Clark to Harry S. Truman, 23 Nov. 1945, PSF National Labor-Management Conference, p. 1–7, Truman Papers; “Labor: Strikes Put Truman on Spot” Business Week, 1 Dec. 1945, 98–100; “Failure of Talks on Labor Peace Disappoints Goods-Hungry U. S.” Newsweek, 10 Dec. 1945, 70; New York Times, 28–30 Nov. 1945.

69 Leo Teplow, “Final Meeting of Committee on Industry's Statement,” box 20, file: Reports of Conference Committees, NAM Papers. Ira Mosher to F. E. Schuchman, 6 Dec. 1945, box 20, file: Labor-Management Conference Correspondence, NAM Papers.

70 “What specific proposals can be made for legislation as a result of the Labor-Management Conference?” 28 Nov. 1945, and Ira Mosher “Report to the Public,” [radio script], box 19, file: Labor-Management Conference of 1945, NAM Papers. “Modern NAM” Business Week, 15 Dec. 1945, 18–19; Harris, Right to Manage, 118–127; Millis, Harry A. and Brown, Emily Clark, From the Wagner Act to Taft Hartley: A Study of National labor Policy and Labor Relations (Chicago, 1950), 286–291Google Scholar.