{"id":283,"date":"2018-05-01T20:56:02","date_gmt":"2018-05-02T00:56:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/?page_id=283"},"modified":"2018-05-06T21:43:46","modified_gmt":"2018-05-07T01:43:46","slug":"railroad-strike","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/26-richmond-protests\/railroad-strike\/","title":{"rendered":"The United Transportation Strike of 1971: How Emotional Manipulation was Used for Social Division During Political Ambiguity"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span>In July 1971<\/span>,<\/span> Richmond became a target <\/span>of<\/span> the United Transportation Union\u2019s national railroad strike. <\/span>The strike began at 6am on July 16<\/span>th<\/span> and lasted eighteen days, officially ending at noon on August 3<\/span>rd<\/span>. Organized by the United Transportation Union (UTU), participants objected to changing railroad policies, which would result in longer runs, the removal of opportunities for additional pay, increased layoffs, and possible relocation requirements. During the strike, the UTU employed a newly<\/span> gained tactical maneuver made possible by a<\/span> recent court ruling <\/span>allowing for intermittent strikes with<\/span> national objective<\/span>s<\/span>. With this new capability, the UTU <\/span>targeted<\/span> four railroads<\/span>: the Southern Railroad, the <\/span>Union Pacif<\/span>ic, Norfolk & Western, <\/span>and the <\/span>Southern Pacific.<\/span><\/p>\n

During the course of the work stoppages, <\/span>The Richmond Times-Dispatch<\/span> <\/span>cover<\/span>ed the strike on a daily basis.<\/span> The paper of record in a town dominated by corporate tobacco firms, the RTD\u2019s coverage reflected the point of view of its leading white elite. The paper\u2019s coverage <\/span>pitted <\/span>individual rail workers <\/span>against<\/span> the rest of Richmond\u2019s citizens. <\/span>A close reading of <\/span>the<\/span> <\/span>coverage of this national demonstration<\/span> <\/span>illustrates the RTD\u2019s<\/span> <\/span>anti-union<\/span> sentiments<\/span>, <\/span>which manifested in<\/span> its<\/span> <\/span>significant <\/span>coverage of<\/span> companies\u2019<\/span> lost profits, <\/span>the possible deprivation of food <\/span>and necessities<\/span>, and <\/span>the<\/span> aim to create conflict <\/span>between <\/span>Richmonders<\/span> and the strikers<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>After World War II<\/span>,<\/span> the <\/span>Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) <\/span>organized a movement<\/span>,<\/span> called <\/span>Operation Dixie<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> aimed at organizing labor in <\/span>the South and challenging <\/span>big businesses<\/span>,<\/span> <\/span>which<\/span> had opposed the New Deal<\/span>. <\/span>In 1947 the <\/span>Taft Hartley Act<\/span><\/a> was enacted<\/span> by Congress<\/span> and Right to Work <\/span>laws<\/span> were<\/span> <\/span>adopted<\/span> shortly thereafter <\/span>by Virginia,<\/span> d<\/span>riving<\/span> union membership down and <\/span>diminishing<\/span> the organizational power of unions. <\/span>The failure of Operation <\/span>Dixie, stemming\u00a0<\/span>from the political divisions created by the Cold War, <\/span>and<\/span> the<\/span> passing of<\/span> Taft-Hartley could be seen in union membership rates: <\/span>only 16.7 percent of Virginia\u2019s workforce belonged to a union in 1970,<\/span><\/a> compared to <\/span>32.9<\/span> percent in<\/span> the<\/span> <\/span>heavily unionized state of <\/span>New York<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

After 1946, the U.S. experienced <\/span>its<\/span> largest<\/span> wave of strikes in 1970, with 2.4 million individuals involved in far-reaching work stoppages. <\/span>Union membership<\/span><\/a> experienced a period of growth between 1966 and 1970 but, by 1972, it began a steady decline. <\/span>During this time th<\/span>e labor movement was politically divided. <\/span>The AFL-CIO<\/span>, which had benefited from an elite position in the Democratic Party,<\/span> boycotted <\/span>Democratic presidential candidate <\/span>George McGovern\u2019s <\/span>efforts to democratize<\/span> candidate selections. They also objected to <\/span>McGovern<\/span>\u2019s stance against the Vietnam War.<\/span> <\/span>As a result the<\/span> p<\/span>arty struggled to reconcile the needs and frustrations of the white working class with the evolving ideologies and demands for social change <\/span>following the<\/span> <\/span>19<\/span>60s.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>At the same time, <\/span>the working class was being courted by the <\/span>Nixon administration<\/span><\/a> which, rather than focusing on the mounting economic issues, <\/span>prioritized<\/span> \u201cpatriotism, morality, <\/span>[and] <\/span>religion\u201d as Nixon put it. <\/span> <\/span>Historian <\/span>J<\/span>efferson <\/span>Cowie<\/span> has argued that Nixon\u2019s embrace of the working class was more rhetorical than substantive:<\/span> <\/span>\u201cHe would make the Republican Party a bit less receptive to the needs of Wall Street and, at least rhetorically, much more open to the men of the assembly lines.\u201d <\/span>This halfhearted<\/span> support of the labor movement reflects the same <\/span>rhetorical <\/span>vagueness<\/span> exemplified by the RTD\u2019s<\/span> un-<\/span>political<\/span> portrayal of the UTU strike.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Richmond Times-Dispatch<\/span>\u2019s coverage of the national strike <\/span>fixated<\/span> on <\/span>financial loss<\/span> and the <\/span>spectre<\/span> of consumer inflation. <\/span>\u201cThe economy certainly is not growing vigorously<\/span>,\u201d warned the paper\u2019s financial reporter on July 18<\/span>th<\/span>,\u201d<\/span> Strike activity on behalf of sharply higher wages is intensifying. And the upward sweep of prices is continuing.\u201d<\/span> <\/span>The article <\/span>goes on, <\/span>mention<\/span>ing<\/span> the telephone and copper strikes occurring simultaneously with the railroad. <\/span>The <\/span>three concurrent strikes<\/span> were said to be in response to inflation and the increasing cost of living.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span>The RTD\u2019s <\/span>re<\/span>presentation of the strike relied heavily on <\/span>data<\/span>, listing money lost and companies closed in response to the lack of transportation. <\/span>O<\/span>nly one article referenced the average yearly pay of UTU members, $12,150<\/span>,<\/span> and<\/span> no articles discussed possible figures for the money that <\/span>workers<\/span> <\/span>could<\/span> <\/span>lose<\/span> due to the changing policies. <\/span>Nearly every article <\/span>included<\/span> figures for<\/span> income lost <\/span>by large companies<\/span>. Within this discussion of loss,<\/span> the coal industry played an important role and specific numbers were given: 210 closed mines in W<\/span>est Virginia<\/span>, V<\/span>irginia<\/span>, K<\/span>entucky<\/span>, and <\/span>Ohio<\/span> 3.5 million dollars lost in coal wages and over $500,000 lost for the United Mine Workers welfare and retirement fund. This was a useful and strategic move, which may have created strife among different unions and pitted rail workers against coal workers. These articles not only placed the two industries\u2019 workers in opposition, but also functioned as a way of <\/span>inciting<\/span> <\/span>anxiety <\/span>among<\/span> citizens who dep<\/span>ended on coal for electricity. <\/span>The <\/span>RTD\u2019s <\/span>framing of the <\/span>s<\/span>trike conveyed <\/span>their<\/span> anti-union sentiment <\/span>by<\/span> creating friction between groups of people and instilling a sense of fear <\/span>for<\/span> the loss of necessities and convenience. <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>Electricity was not the only concern for <\/span>Richmonders<\/span>,<\/span> the RTD also raised fears regarding food and <\/span>the <\/span>potential for shortages<\/span>. <\/span>Near the <\/span>strike\u2019s <\/span>end, on Jul<\/span>y 30<\/span>th<\/span>, an article noted that no food shortages had occurred thus far, however, that did not keep the RTD from stoking the fire. An article from July 18<\/span>th<\/span>, <\/span>noted<\/span> that the striking railroads<\/span> carr<\/span>ied<\/span> <\/span>23 <\/span>percent of the United States\u2019 produce<\/span>.<\/span> Other articles discussed how grain and other food items were <\/span>being stockpiled<\/span>. Also targeted was the pinch felt by the agriculture industry, which the RTD reported on July 30<\/span>th<\/span>, would soon run out of livestock feed. This tactic, focusing on the availability of food and the <\/span>possibility<\/span> of shortages, was an emotional manipulation that did not stop with articles.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"\" <\/span>On August 1<\/span>st<\/span>, the RTD printed an editorial,<\/span> \u201cUTU v. the People\u201d alongside the<\/span> cartoon titled, <\/span>Sleepwalker. <\/span>This editorial <\/span>placed the union in conflict with the citizens and explicitly presented anti-union opinions. One passage read, <\/span><\/p>\n

This strike does more than pit railroad labor against railroad management. It also pits railroad labor against the Richmond housewife<\/span>,<\/span> the Tazewell County coal miner, the Nebraska wheat farmer, the California vegetable grower, the Southern <\/span>poultryman<\/span> \u2013 and the Idaho lumberman. The shopper who watches supermarket prices soar because of the strike, the farmer who watches his summer\u2019s work rot in the sun because of the strike and the non-railroad<\/span> worker<\/span> who finds himself idled\u2014 and probably broke– because of the strike are the real victims. In this dispute, it is a union of less than 200,000 railroad workers against the American people.<\/span><\/p>\n

By creating victims and villains<\/span>—<\/span>the <\/span>\u201c<\/span>American People<\/span>\u201d<\/span> and the <\/span>r<\/span>ail workers<\/span>—<\/span>this e<\/span>ditorial <\/span>made strikers into an un-American enemy<\/span>. In addition, the RTD attempted to discredit the union by reproaching their demands, <\/span>arguing<\/span> that the strike lost credence because it was not focused on money, but instead on resisting the change to policies that <\/span>the RTD<\/span> deemed \u201carchaic work rules that impair railroad efficiency<\/span>.<\/span>\u201d<\/span> <\/span>The paper showed no restraint in expressing its opinion and did so with<\/span> manipulative language,<\/span> creating contention that<\/span> may or may not have existed. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"In t<\/span>he cartoon <\/span>accompanying this editorial, t<\/span>he union is portrayed as violently holding up\u00a0<\/span>the nation\u2019s economy, while demanding to be treated to a featherbed life of comfort.<\/span> <\/span>This cartoon visually represents the social divides the RTD had been encouraging throughout its coverage of the strike.\u00a0\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The<\/span> <\/span>paper<\/span> printed two Southern Railway system <\/span>advertisements <\/span>on July 19<\/span>th<\/span> and August 1<\/span>st<\/span>. The first to appear<\/span> s<\/span>howed a list of recent strikes listed along <\/span>a railroad track. The<\/span> second<\/span>, <\/span>a letter from a <\/span>young <\/span>boy to the president of the Southern Railroad<\/span>, <\/span>targeted<\/span> readers\u2019 emotion<\/span>s<\/span>. Both included appeals to reader<\/span>s<\/span> to write to <\/span>their <\/span>local government leaders about <\/span>creating<\/span> <\/span>an Emergency Board to resolve the strike. Like the RTD\u2019s articles and editorial, these ads appealed to the citizens with lines like this, \u201cAlternative means of transportation can be costly. And who pays the cost? You\u2014the consumer<\/span>.<\/span>\u201d <\/span>These<\/span> ads sought to discredit the strike in the same wa<\/span>y<\/span> as the RTD editorial, by asserting that <\/span>strikers<\/span> <\/span>could not tolerate rational efforts to<\/span> \u201cincrease productivity.<\/span><\/p>\n

The campaign against the UTU Railroad Strike was one of strategic emotional manipulation<\/span> and<\/span> demonstrated how anti-union attitudes prompted <\/span>social divides. <\/span>While the RTD\u2019s emotional attack of the UTU <\/span>was not <\/span>motivated by<\/span> an official endo<\/span>rsement for Nixon\u2019s reelection, their anti-union beliefs <\/span>aligned with t<\/span>heir <\/span>future endorsements<\/span><\/a> <\/span>of<\/span> R<\/span>epublican presidential nominees <\/span>from<\/span> 1980 <\/span>to<\/span> 2012. <\/span>The RTD\u2019s anti-union rhetoric <\/span>is full of patriotism, morality, and emotions, <\/span>similar to<\/span> <\/span>that of the <\/span>app<\/span>roaching storm of Conservatism. <\/span><\/p>\n

For Further Reading:<\/span><\/p>\n

Jefferson <\/span>Cowie<\/span>,\u00a0<\/span>Stayin<\/span>‘ Alive<\/span>: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class<\/span>.<\/span> <\/span>New Press, <\/span>2010.<\/span><\/p>\n

K<\/span>en <\/span>Fones<\/span>-Wolf & Elizabeth A. <\/span>Fones<\/span>-Wolf<\/span>, <\/span>Struggle for the Soul of the Postwar South: White Evangelical Protestants and Operation Dixie<\/span>.<\/span> <\/span>U<\/span>niversity of Illinois Press, 20<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Image Credits Not From Exhibit:<\/span><\/p>\n

Letter from Kyle Swanson, Aug. 2, 1971. Richmond Times-Dispatch.<\/span><\/p>\n

How Many Rail Strikes Can You Put Up With<\/span>?<\/span>,<\/span> July 19, 1971. <\/span>Richmond Times-Dispatch.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In July 1971, Richmond became a target of the United Transportation Union\u2019s national railroad strike. The strike began at 6am on July 16th and lasted eighteen days, officially ending at noon on August 3rd. Organized by the United Transportation Union … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2867,"featured_media":0,"parent":178,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"onecolumn-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-283","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2867"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/283\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/178"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/rvaprotest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}