strength to groups which by themselves do not have as much power as derives from the control of truck operations.

The expansion of the Teamsters' Union has met resistance, not only from employers, but from other unions. The Brewery Workers in the Northwest strenuously resisted the inroads of the Teamsters, but finally lost. The Teamsters have also come up against the Long shoremen's Union, which likewise has not confined itself to its original jurisdiction. The "march inland" by the latter was matched by a "march to the sea" by the former. The warehousemen in the port cities of the Coast have been organized by both groups, and the lines of demarcation are tightly drawn. In San Francisco, the Longshoremen have organized the majority of the warehousemen, and the Teamsters in the other major ports.

The most recent conflict has been in the fruit and vegetable canning industry. The canneries in the Pacific Northwest were almost exclusively organized by the AFL, originally, and jurisdiction was assigned to the Teamsters in 1945. The AFL conducted a strong organizing campaign in the large-scale canning industry of northern California in 1937, which was supported by the Teamsters' Union. The AFL signed an agreement in 1937 with the California Processors and Growers, representing most of the major canneries. The United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing, and Allied Workers of America (UCAPAWA-CIO) filed charges of company domination of the AFL locals with the National Labor Relations Board, but no action was taken. The UCAPAWA was replaced by the CIO Food, Tobacco, Agricultural, and Allied Workers Union of America (FTA). When the Teamsters were given jurisdiction over the cannery workers in 1945, this CIO union conducted an organizing drive in the industry. The first National Labor Relations Board election in 1945 was declared invalid. A second election in 1946 was won by the Teamsters, subject to the recounting or rejection of a large number of challenged votes. Final determination has not been made, but the Teamsters have possession of the contract with the California Processors and Growers. Some of the independent canneries have been organized by the FTA. In almost every case the Teamsters sign contracts with organized employers: The Bakers' Bureau of Seattle, the Associated Producers and Packers of Washington, the Garage Owners' Association, the Milk Dealers' Association, the Taxi Operators' Association, and the Truck Owners Association, to name only a few. Most of these associations, and the resulting contracts, cover a single city, or in the case of the canning industry, a producing region. The standard contract calls for the closed shop. Many of the Teamsters' strikes have been for this objective. Once it is granted few strikes occur, and the union follows a policy of strict contract observance. The union and the

736030-47- -8

individual employers' association sometimes seek to "stabilize" the industry. "In essence, it represents an arrangement whereby the union and the employers' associations cooperate to pay high wages, to charge 'standard' prices, and to restrain or regulate competition." 47 The union examines the ability of the employers to pay as an important consideration in its wage policy.

The Teamsters' Union has organized primarily in local market industries where external competition is nonexistent or not severe and contractual arrangements directed toward the local situation can be worked out. Its membership is composed of settled local residents with steady jobs, as compared with the more floating labor force of the lumber, longshore, and maritime industries. It has emerged as a leading example of "business unionism."

Multiple-Employer Bargaining in San Francisco

Multiple-employer bargaining, widespread throughout the Pacific Coast, is most fully developed in San Francisco. The master agreement has replaced the individual company contract to such an extent that three-fourths of the employees in San Francisco are covered by an area-wide contract. Employers' associations not only negotiate such agreements but also administer them.

Industry-wide agreements in San Francisco go back to the "Gold Rush" days,48 but the modern master agreement which now characterizes collective bargaining largely dates from 1934. The aggressiveness of the trade-union movement encouraged employers to organize to prevent the successful use of "whipsaw" tactics. An alert union could play one employer against another and raise the level of its contractual arrangements. When the employers organized, this tactic was no longer so successful, for all strikes became industrywide, and thus more costly to the unions.

The San Francisco Employers' Council, which was formed in 1938 to unite employers generally, stated one of its principle purposes to be: "To promote the recognition and exercise of the right of employers to bargain collectively."49 The unions have not always been willing to accept such organization by the employers. and the resultant bargaining on a multiemployer basis. The most recent and best known act of resistance gave rise to the Oakland "general strike” in the fall of 1946. The Retail Clerks' Union50 had organized in two department stores and demanded recognition. The more than 20 affiliated stores refused to recognize the union or to bargain with it

47 Richard A. Lester: Economics of Labor (New York, Macmillan, 1941), p. 150.

48 Ira B. Cross: A History of the Labor Movement in California (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1935).

49 San Francisco Employers' Council: Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws (1938).

50 Retail Clerks' International Protective Association (AFL).

on a store-by-store basis, but insisted that the union would need to secure a majority of the employees in all the stores belonging to the employers' association before it was eligible for collective bargaining rights. Out of this original dispute and the episodes which accompanied it came the general work stoppage by the local AFL unions. While new unions and rival unions have opposed the system because it blocked their efforts to organize, established unions have generally accepted it. Standardization of wages and conditions results, the process of negotiation is simplified as only one contract must be developed, and the union is protected from raiding by rival organizations, which find it difficult to organize ar ertire industry all at once. The more or less unique character of employer organization in San Francisco developed as a second step. Once a uniform agreement was signed, unions could still "whipsaw" employers through processing grievances. By getting one concession here and another there, the basis for an improved contract could be laid by standardizing the concessions at their highest levels. This led the employers' associations to administer, as well as negotiate, the contracts. Grievances, in many instances, have been made the property of the association, and no one employer can make a settlement which would disadvantage other members. Job evaluation has, on occasion, been used to standardize job titles, content, and rates as a method of keeping each company in line with all the rest.

The master agreements cover various areas. The standard craft agreement is usually confined to the local labor market area. The industrial agreement tends to cover the geographical area within which the product is competitively produced and may vary from a single town, as in the case of bread, to a subregion, as in the case of fruit and vegetable canning. Some agreements are not confined by either of these locational forces. They span the area, without reference to craft jurisdiction or product market, over which the union has exercised its influence. Quite diverse groups of workers and products may be covered.

The association which most prominently sponsors multiemployer bargaining is the San Francisco Employers' Council. It unites a number of individual employers' associations, as well as single firms otherwise unaffiliated. It corresponds to the Central Labor Council (AFL) and the Industrial Union Council (CIO). In addition to other services, it attempts to coordinate the general approach of employers in the city toward the trade-unions. The Council was organized with a program of bargaining with the unions, not of destroying them.

The plan of an area-wide association of employers has extended outward from San Francisco. A number of cities in Northern Cali

fornia have organizations patterned, in part at least, after the council. Similarly oriented associations have been or are being developed in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Reno, and Denver. A Pacific Coast association has been suggested. The expansion of this system, however, has not gone unchallenged. It has been attacked by representatives of the principal national association of industrialists, which is opposed to multiple-employer bargaining. The plan has, however, exhibited survival value in San Francisco, and its supporters can point to the Nation-wide acceptance of industry-wide employer organizations in Sweden and Great Britain.

Multiple-employer bargaining apparently has reduced the number of strikes in San Francisco in the past decade, as compared with Los Angeles and, indeed, with the United States. The greater size of strikes and their augmented cost have encouraged the parties to undertake greater advance deliberation before precipitating a work stoppage. Although the number of strikes has decreased comparatively, the average strike has lasted longer and involved more people, so that man-days lost because of strikes have not been reduced relatively. Resort to arbitration over the terms of a new contract has increased.

The modern type of multiemployer bargaining in San Francisco has not given rise to collusive actions against the consumer, nor have small firms been exploited by the larger firms in each association. The public, however, has been inconvenienced on occasion because the strikes which do occur tend to shut off all sources of supply of goods or services simultaneously.

In summarizing the development of collective bargaining on the Pacific Coast, it is found that: (1) Trade-union agreements more completely cover the "eligible" workers than in the Nation as a whole. Pacific Coast labor is estimated to be 20 percent more fully covered by written contracts then labor in other areas. (2) The unions have had a history, in many important industries, of aggressive action, particularly in the San Francisco and Seattle areas. Some of this aggressiveness originally developed on the water front and in the logging camps. (3) Employers have organized widely, in earlier times to fight, and more recently to bargain with the unions. Some of these associations, especially in San Francisco, administer, as well as negotiate, the collective agreements. (4) While there is great diversity in the bargaining systems, industry-wide or area-wide labor agreements are widely used. The trend is away from the single employer contract. The multiemployer contract has, in several industries, helped bring stability into industrial relations and has indicated maturity of development.

DEVELOPMENT of industry in California, Oregon, and Washington at a later period than in the Eastern and Middle Western areas afforded an opportunity in these States for study of labor laws elsewhere and for the adoption of accepted standards of labor legislation and administration.

Each of the West Coast States has followed recommended standards by establishing a labor department. However, not all labor functions are centralized in these agencies. In California, unemployment compensation and a public employment service are within the authority of the Department of Employment, which is outside the Department of Industrial Relations. In Oregon, five separate agencies, the Bureau of Labor, the Wage and Hour Commission, the Industrial Accident Commission, the Unemployment Compensation Commission, and the Board of Conciliation, have responsibility for various labor functions. In Washington, the Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement is outside the Department of Labor and Industries.

Minimum-wage laws with coverage limited to women and minors have been enacted by all three States. Wage orders issued under wage board procedure cover most occupations, and in all three States, orders may govern working conditions as well as minimum wages.

The hours legislation also applies primarily to the protection of women and minors. As yet, the standard of an 8-hour day and 40hour week, recommended by the National Conferences on Labor Legislation for all workers, has not been achieved.

Only California has an hours law (providing for 1 day's rest in 7) which applies to all workers; and, in that State, agriculture and a limited number of other special classes of employment are excepted. The three States regulate hours of men only in occupations recognized as especially hazardous, or when the safety of the public might be jeopardized by long hours of work.

California has a comprehensive industrial homework act, with power to prohibit homework occupations. Oregon has no homework law but has exercised some control of such work under its minimum wage statute. Washington has no homework law.

California and Oregon provide by law for the prompt and regular payment of wages in a quickly negotiable form. All three States also make the services of the labor department available to help workers in collection of unpaid wages.

Protection of workers' safety in these three States is provided for through exercise of rule-making authority, under which standards may

Prepared by Marian L. Mel, of the Division of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor.