From May 1936 to April 1937, a strike against the Remington Rand company was conducted by a federal union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The strike settlement would not be fully implemented until mid-1940. The union had managed to organize six plants of the company, which were located in the towns of Tonawanda, Ilion and Syracuse in New York; in Middletown, Connecticut; and in Marietta and Norwood in Ohio.
The strike is notorious for spawning the "Mohawk Valley formula," a corporate plan for strikebreaking to discredit union leaders, frighten the public with the threat of violence, use local police and vigilantes to intimidate strikers, form puppet associations of "loyal employees" to influence public debate, fortify workplaces, employ large numbers of strikebreakers, and threaten to close the plant if work is not resumed. The Mohawk Valley formula was described in an article by company president James Rand, Jr., and published in the National Association of Manufacturers Labor Relations Bulletin in the fourth month of the strike. The article was widely disseminated in pamphlet form by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) later that year.
In a landmark decision, the National Labor Relations Board called the Mohawk Valley formula "a battle plan for industrial war."Quote in "Glossary, History at the Department of Labor," U.S. Department of Labor, no date. The "Mohawk Valley formula" refers to the town of Ilion, New York, which is located in the Mohawk Valley.
Background In March 1934, the AFL began organizing skilled workers at two typewriter companies, Underwood Typewriter Company and Remington Rand. The employees organized the District Council of Office Equipment Workers, a federal union affiliated with the Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor. Six plants were organized in the towns of Tonawanda, Ilion and Syracuse in New York; in Middletown, Connecticut; and in Marietta and Norwood in Ohio.Rodden, The Fighting Machinists: A Century of Struggle, 1984.Stolberg, The Story of the CIO, 1938.
James Rand, Jr., president of Remington Rand, refused to bargain with the union. On May 8, 1934, 6,500 workers struck to force the company to recognize the union and sign a collective bargaining agreement. On June 18, 1936, the firm recognized the union and signed a contract which provided wage increases and established a grievance procedure.
Remington Rand, however, continued a policy of harassment and obstruction toward the union. It often violated the contract in small ways (forcing the union to file time-consuming and costly grievances), harassed union leaders, and generally contested the union at every turn."'Medieval, Shocking,' " Time, March 22, 1937.
In February 1936, the District Council of Office Equipment Workers became the Remington Rand Joint Protective Board.
Beginning of the strike Worker anger had built high by May 1936, when the company spread rumors that its plants were being bought by an unknown firm that would no longer recognize the union. Remington Rand then announced it had purchased a typewriter plant in nearby Elmira and might close the Tonawanda and Syracuse facilities. The union demanded information on possible plant closures, which the company refused.
The union then threatened a strike. In retaliation, the company distributed its own strike ballots and claimed that it alone could speak for workers. Outraged union officials seized and destroyed the company's ballots, interrupted and broke up meetings at which ballots were handed out, and harassed and physically intimidated managers trying to conduct balloting."Syracuse Shop Shut by Remington Rand," Associated Press, May 22, 1936."Rand Reshuffle," Time, June 22, 1936.Remington Rand, Inc., 2 NLRB 626 (decided March 13, 1937).
The Joint Board quickly held its own strike vote. More than 75% of the union's members voted to strike. Union officials asked the company to submit the dispute to a federal mediator, but the company refused to do so. Instead, Remington Rand fired the presidents of the local unions in Tonawanda and Syracuse along with fifteen other union activists. Infuriated workers in Ilion, Syracuse and Tonawanda walked off their jobs on May 25, 1936, followed by Remington Rand workers in Ohio and Connecticut the following day."Strike in 6 Plants of Remington Rand," New York Times, May 26, 1936."Six Rand Factories Guarded in Strike," New York Times, May 27, 1936.
Violence during the strike The Remington Rand strike was a particularly violent strike. Although no one died during the strike, both sides engaged in beatings with fists and clubs, rock and brick throwing, vandalism, threats and physical intimidation. But historians and federal officials point out that the company went out of its way to antagonize workers and use private security personnel (sometimes disguised as workers) to instigate violence and riots. The record before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the scholarly literature show that the level of violence in the strike was deliberately manipulated by Remington Rand, and was several orders of magnitude higher than it would have been had the company not taken the actions it did."'Whispering' Used to Break Ranks," New York Times. November 25, 1936.
Notable incidents include: In mid-June 1936, the company sent 100 strikebreakers through the picket line toward the front gate of the plant in Tonawanda. The company deliberately withdrew its protection of the workers when they reached the picket line. A fight broke out between the strikebreakers and the 500 picketers. Tonawanda police, waiting nearby, descended on the picketers and beat hundreds with billy-clubs. Beginning July 3, 1936, a four-day running riot began around the Middletown, Ohio, plant. The riot began when the company attempted to bring hundreds of strikebreakers through the picket lines unprotected. Over the following two days, workers hurled stones at strikebreakers, keeping them from entering the plant. When the company attempted to bring the workers in on buses on July 7, workers seized and boarded the buses, then forced the strikebreakers off the buses. Two were parked at the plant gates and torn apart. A third was chased by police through the streets of the town, only to crash on the lawn in front of City Hall."Half Dozen Beaten in Rand Strike Riot," Associated Press, July 4, 1936; "Workers Stoned in Ohio Rand Strike," Associated Press, July 7, 1936."3 Buses Wrecked by Rand Strikers," Associated Press, July 8, 1936; "Deadlock Persists in Ohio," Associated Press, July 12, 1936. On July 24, 1936, striking workers threw home-made bombs at plants in Middletown and Syracuse, injuring one policeman. The bombs did only minor damage."Policeman Hurt By Strike Bomb at Rand Plant," United Press International, July 25, 1936. On August 12, 1936, Syracuse police shot and injured two strikers, leading the governor of the state to threaten to bring in the National Guard unless local authorities showed more restraint."2 Shot in Rand Strike," Associated Press, August 13, 1936. On August 22, 1936, striking workers at the Middletown plant hurled large iron balls at police, injuring four."4 Hurt in Rioting at Rand Factory," Associated Press, August 23, 1936.
Strike tactics The Remington Rand strike is notable for the wide array of aggressive anti-union tactics employed by the employer. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) documented these tactics in a 120-page decision, Remington Rand, Inc., 2 NLRB 626 (decided March 13, 1937). The tactics used were not merely inventive (although some had been used by employers before), but, as the NLRB argued, were specifically designed and utilized to undermine the democratic process, manipulate public opinion through deceit and terror, and violate federal law.
Plant closures With the union out on strike, Remington Rand quickly began consolidating its plants. The company later admitted that it had long wanted to close several of its plants, but that the union was too strong and would not have permitted it. Remington Rand contracted with millwrights several months before the strike began (discussions which courts and federal agencies later interpreted as a sign of the company's bad-faith bargaining) to dismantle the plants. Within days of the strike's commencement, Remington Rand contractors began crating plant machinery in Middletown, Syracuse and Tonawanda. Workers tried blocking the millwrights and trucks from entering and leaving the plant but were mostly unsuccessful. Strikers subsequently pelted trucks with stones, bricks and bottles, or laid iron spikes in the roadway to puncture the tires of trucks."Remington Rand Moves Machines," New York Times, June 5, 1936."Rand Acquitted of Strikebreaking," New York Times, November 19, 1937.
Misleading information about plant closures was also common. When the strike began, the mayor of Syracuse met with Rand and won Rand's personal reassurance that the company would not close the plant. But Rand planned exactly that, and his lie was designed to win backing of city officials for the company's anti-union campaign. The company also often placed "For Sale" signs in front of factories or announced their closing in advertisements. In some cases, the company went so far as to hire private security guards to pose as millwrights to support its claim that it was closing plants.Smith, From Blackjacks to Briefcases, 2003. Announcements of plant closures were designed to demoralize striking union members and frighten workers who had remained on the job into staying. They also were used to terrorize local citizens who feared for the economic life of their towns. Often, company officials would later make statements suggesting that the plant would stay open if the union gave up the strike, statements which encouraged local citizens to put intense emotional, political and economic pressure on the union."U.S. Board Orders Remington Rand to Re-Employ 4,000," New York Times, March 15, 1937."Threatens to Close a Remington Plant." Associated Press, June 13, 1936; "Remington Rand Drops 3 Plants," Associated Press, June 14, 1936.
Use of private security forces Remington Rand also hired very large numbers of private security forces to protect its property and attempt to re-open some facilities. The company had engaged in extensive pre-strike planning with "detective agencies" (a euphemism for private security guard companies) in all its locations. In discussions with these firms, the company clearly conveyed the attitude that it had every intention of provoking a strike in order to break the union, and would not engage in good-faith bargaining. One company which provided private security forces, led by Pearl Bergoff, received $25,850."Rand, Bergoff and Chowderhead," Time, December 7, 1936. Remington Rand claimed it had to hire its own private police forces to protect its property and the strikebreakers. But the union and local officials argued that Remington Rand's real goal was to foment trouble. As Middletown Mayor Leo Santangelo pointed out: "There were more policemen outside than there were men wanting to come in."
Support of local law enforcement