Unionization for the black worker only resulted in the replacement of blatant discrimination with more subtle forms of discriminatory practice, particularly within the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Such is the contention of sociologist Herbert Hill. In contrast, Michael Goldfield (1993) contends that certain unions within the CIO, notably the left-led unions with interracial leadership, managed to achieve racial egalitarianism and improve working conditions for blacks.
The establishment of the CIO in 1935 raised false hopes among black workers that equal employment opportunities would soon be forthcoming. Historically, organized labor had been used as a tool by whites for displacing blacks from desirable jobs or denying access to employment. Before the turn of the century, blacks were excluded from joining trade unions, including the powerful American Federation of Labor (AFL). The AFL and other skilled craft unions maintained strict policies of whites-only membership that were often written into their constitutions. These white supremacist policies included vigorous anti-Oriental campaigns against Asian workers. Exclusion from union protection and privileges relegated blacks to the lowest rungs of occupational categories--agricultural, menial, and domestic work. Not only did the AFL discriminate racially, it ignored the needs of unskilled workers and those employed in industrial mass production. The CIO stepped in to fill this gap and, although viewed with initial skepticism by some blacks, others regarded its advent as a Godsend for black workers: "The Urban League urged Negroes to join unions and hailed the CIO as 'a new champion to defend the rights of the underdog'" (Foner, 1974, p. 217).
In its rivalry with the AFL, the CIO initiated a massive unionization drive in 1936. CIO leaders realized that the infusion of large numbers of blacks into the organization was critical to the union's success. ...