A TURNING POINT FOR FRANCO-AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE MAINE LABOR MOVEMENT by Gabrielle Foster

Introduction

The 1930’s were a time of changes, different from the excitement and rebellion of the 1920’s, but changes nonetheless. The changes were rooted in the economy, the workforce, and the government’s response to what was happening in those areas. The events of the General Textile Strike of 1934 were among the many changes that spurred a shift in how workers identified themselves. The social, governmental, cultural, and economic changes that occurred during this time came together to impact the workers, specifically those living in ethnically centered communities in New England. As a result they began to identify more with the working class and less with their ethnic groupings, which led to an increased involvement in labor organizations and strikes, as well as overall assimilation into American culture and society. Though this was not a sudden, abrupt, or total change, it hinted at the Americanization that was to come and helped get the economy moving out of the rut of the Great Depression. The changes of the 1930’s set a new framework for how working was done in the United States, and how the country must work together to get out of difficult times. The General Textile Strike happened to come at a time when many of these factors were coming together, making it a prime event to focus on when studying these changes and shifts.

Historiography

In studying the General Textile Strike one of course delves into the study of labor history. Though labor history in general is a very interesting and relatively new subject, few have tackled the issue of labor history in Maine, save for Charles Scontras, specifically because, typically, Maine is not seen as an influential labor center, at least not in the eyes of the labor organizers and union heads. It was also quite rare up until about the past one hundred years to write about, research, and discuss Franco-American history in Maine, even though these people made up, and still do make up, a large majority of the ethnic background in this state. What is even more rare is the combination of these two fields: the role of Franco-Americans in the Maine work force and the labor movement.

One reason for the rarity is that Franco-American involvement in labor organizations was not very commonplace up until the time this thesis focuses on, which is surprising because they did make up ~~such~~ a majority of the work force. Most of the major Maine labor history texts used in this thesis do of course include mention of the Franco-American workers, because they undoubtedly made up a hefty portion of the work force, but usually speak of them as the complacent workers who never organized and who followed to a ‘T’ the orders of their church and other important community leaders. Charles A. Scontras’ books on Maine labor history were both very informative and helpful to the research and background of this topic. His works focus on many different aspects of labor, from its beginnings in the state to how it responded to cultural events occurring throughout the century.[1]

Books discussing Franco-American labor presence and studies of their work in general were found, but focused on other specific regions of New England, like Gary Gerstle’s Working Class Americanism.[2] This book focused on the town of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, and the changes it faced before, during, and after the Depression Era. He spent ample time discussing different ethnic groups, including Franco-Americans. It was useful to learn about general feelings and attitudes, but since it was so specific to one town, one could not take any of the scenarios out of context. Though they may have been similar to what was occurring here in Maine, one cannot assume. C. Stewart Doty’s work for the Federal Writers Project[3] provided useful accounts of interviews with Franco-Americans from Maine and New England, which provided a sense of general feelings and attitudes, even if the interviews were scattered through different locations or work specialties, like the timber or paper industries. Similar to Gerstle’s book, it was useful but did not focus specifically on the geographical area this research is specifically looking at. What it did provide was insight into the feelings of the people, which cannot be found in government documents or records.

Some scholarly research was found that focused specifically on Franco-American textile workers in Waterville, Maine.[4] This thesis, written for a graduate degree at the University of Maine, did not quite line up with the same time period focused on in this thesis. LaFlamme, the author, also used a “compare and contrast” method to look at the behaviors of the Franco-American workers in that specific town, comparing them in his case to Lebanese immigrants and workers, who also made up a large portion of the work force there~~in that town~~. Other scholarly work, like the graduate thesis of Mark Paul Richard, and the subsequent books that derived from this work, took opposite stances from some of the other authors mentioned here. Richard disagreed with Gerstle concerning the grouping of Franco-Americans into isolated ethnic groups and felt that the shift away from the clergy happened much earlier than Gerstle believes. They also aligned themselves with the working class much before this and began the acculturation process well before the 1930’s as well, according to Richard.[5] These fundamental differences demonstrate that people can have different views ofn subjects and sets of information. These different viewpoints helped in the shaping of a new direction~~view~~ for this research.

As far as primary sources used, interviews were very crucial to understanding the feelings and actions of Franco-American workers at this time. Newspapers, from the Lewiston Evening Journal[6] and Lewiston Daily Sun[7], to the French-language Le Messager[8], were clearly important in tying together the daily events of the textile strike, the new labor legislation, and the people’s reaction to all of this. Government records of the legislation, like the acts that came from the New Deal, were important to making sense of these laws and enactments as well as to understanding why they were being put in place in the first place and what specific effects they had on workers. Church and town records laid down a base of statistics that helped better understand the status quo before, during, and after the time of focus. Records from the labor organizations as well were used to see how unions approached the state and its work force in order to help change conditions.

Though many historians have taken into consideration~~effect~~ the economic~~cal~~ changes that led to the general growth of the labor movement, not many focused in on a specific ethnic group. There were many changes in the lives of Franco-Americans because of the shift in how they identified themselves, mainly changes in the workplace. One of those changes was a newfound involvement in the labor movement and involvement in the fight for their workplace security and rights. By using the specific event of the General Textile Strike of 1934 as a microcosm for understanding these changes, this thesis looks to approach this time in a way not previously done before. This research will bring all of these factors together to understand the shift in Maine labor involvement, and show how they helped put Maine labor on the national scene. Though the change was not sudden or overly drastic, the involvement of Franco-Americans in labor unions was previously unheard of. It is important not to ignore such a large part of the Maine population when looking at something they were so heavily involved in. This history also helps us more fully understand the industrial forces that helped our state prosper, like the textile industry, and what was going on inside that industry at the time. Though we may not be known for textile mills today, they did play a large role in our development during this period.

Franco-American Origins and La Survivance

The history of Franco-Americans in Maine is quite long and complex; they came in different waves and for different reasons. Some came because of lack of jobs or success in farming in their home country. Others came because the farmable land that did remain was growing smaller and smaller. The families simply could not survive as they once did through traditional means. They often came in groups and stayed in groups once here. In the twentieth century they made the move to the United States primarily for the work. Life in the rural counties of Québec province was not as prosperous as it had once been because of the slow shift away from agriculture. The land was simply not performing. When they learned there was a different type of work available aux Etats-Unis they made the move south. Upon doing so they were quickly put to work in the abundance of up and coming factories all over New England. Factory owners and bosses profited from their numbers and natural work ethic. Once the word was spread that there was readily available wage labor in the states, many people from back home in Canada would join those already here, creating regions and towns that could be made up of large majorities of Franco-Americans. Many of those who came saw it not only as an opportunity to work, but to see all the spectacular sights and advantages they had heard American life had to offer. Though they physically left their country they brought most all of their cultural traditions with them and maintained strong ties with Québec. Some even continued to send money back to family members still in Canada, or would return every couple of years to help them out financially.

The strongest idea they kept with them was that of La Survivance. Though a bit difficult to explain, it is a feeling instilled from childhood for the Franco-Americans and Québécois who learned its ways. La Survivance is the idea of maintaining Québécois culture and identity through the use of the French language, maintaining the traditional family structure, the Catholic religion, and the other traditions like food, celebrations, etc. Because of the complex history in Québec they were taught from a young age to stay strongly united against those who were trying to oppress them or take their land and rights away. Because of this they spoke only their native French, even when being ruled by a British government, and continued to have large families in order to keep up the size of their population and spread their traditions through these new members. By doing these things they came off as a strong, united force that was willing to preserve their heritage and stay together through thick and thin. The church played a very large role in preaching these ideals and making sure the community stayed strong. Many French Canadians, and Franco-Americans, looked to the church as the utmost authority in their life, as opposed to regional or national government.

These feelings and practices they of course brought with them to America, and they maintained a very close tie with the church in Québec and even friends and family members there. Because they were new in this strange place, which was predominately Protestant, they looked to the council of the Québec church for guidance until Catholic churches could be established in the states. They felt excluded from the only other Catholic parishioners in the area, the Irish, because of the difference in language. Neither group was really willing to let the other in. The Franco-Americans would attend church services in the Irish churches, but would stand in the back and not truly understand because the service was in English. Because of this distance they felt even more like outsiders in their new surroundings and had only their small ethnic communities, known as les Petits Canadas, to interact with. They practiced what Mark Paul Richard called “ethnic isolation.”[9] They built their own social institutions that they felt comfortable with, like grocery stores, credit unions and social buildings, and even published newspapers in their native language. They did not know whose word to trust in this place, making the word and power of the church very important, and they stuck with what they knew, La Survivance. In this new place the church was something and someone to count on, and as Mrs. Estelle Bouchard so perfectly said, “ If you were French, you were Catholic, and one was equally as strong as the other. It was as if Catholicism were a nationality.”[10]

As much as the church was a unifying factor in its own way, it was also effective in its methods because of its grand presence. Many people did not want to go against the word and teachings of the church because they feared possible exclusion as a result of disobeying, and that was not a welcome option in such a tight community. This voice even overrode that of other community leaders and authorities, and as Mr. Violette said, “You didn’t do anything in those days without [the priest’s] permission. He was boss. He controlled banks and businesses, etc. His authority exceeded that of the civil authorities.”[11] Some historical research on the church said that certain parishes actually, “facilitated the assimilation of its members.”[12]This idea, proposed by Richard, only really began to apply in the second half of the twentieth century, when the institutions of the church faced an adapt-or-die moment within their own communities. When the social institutions were becoming more popular thaen those of the church, they needed to do something to change.

Because for the most part the voice of the church was so omnipotent and strong, when they had an opinion on something, most parishioners followed it. When some labor groups began organizing in Maine as early as the 1880’s the church quickly took action to make its~~their~~ feelings known. When grassroots labor organizations moved and started establishing a presence in Montreal, the Québec church moved to condemn their actions, and the closely tied bishops in Maine did the same.[13] Les Chevaliers du Travail, or the Knights of Labor, was the first labor organization to make its presence known in Québec and the Northeast. Priests and Bishops looked down on this organization because they felt it to be too secretive and opposite from the cultural and traditional teachings of the church.[14] In some cases if parishioners joined they would be denied holy rights. Though there was a Knights of Labor membership in Maine from these early days, it grew easier to be publicly in support of labor practices if the church influence was lessened. It may appear through records and public announcements that Franco-Americans were not involved in labor, but if there was a Knight of Labor presence, there were Franco-American workers involved in it. Irregardless of their active participation in strikes, the ideas of protecting their labor rights were in their head. The overall agenda of the (French) Catholic Church in Maine was to stay in alliance with those in Québec and with their decisions to maintain the traditional ways and culture. In their eyes, Les Chevaliers du Travail acted contrary to these goals, and was therefore not supported by the Church hierarchy. A more specific denouncement of labor activity came during the General Textile Strike of 1934. Two members of the Lewiston Franco-American community denounced unionization of textile workers in the days leading up to the strike. The chairman of the strike committee, Francis Gorman, said about the act, “I am amazed that any clergyman should denounce efforts of workers to better their conditions. Especially in Maine where workers have been so long under the domination of the Pepperell Company.”[15] The two men who denounced the organizing were Mayor Robert Wiseman and Reverend Mannes Emile Marchand. It is more than likely that they made this decision after attending a meeting held by the United Textile Workers of America (TWA). The Lewiston Evening Journal reported on August 30^th that during the meeting the two men were, “bitterly criticize[d]”[16] by those leading the meeting.

The General Textile Strike of 1934

In order to see why all of this was important and how everything came together, one must first look at one of the events in which all the factors did come together and the workers did organize. The General Textile Strike of 1934 was one of national proportions. This strike started in the South and spread all the way to Maine. In looking at the origins of this strike one can see what sort of pressures all of the workers were feeling, including the Franco-Americans, and how they reacted to those pressures. One can also further identify and determine those pressures if they have a good understanding of the events the workers went through. Because of this, one must look at how this strike got started.

The origins of this strike, similar to those of many strikes, had to do with wages, length of the workweek, and rights of the workers. The fact that the Great Depression was occurring at the same time of course had an impact onto how the workers were treated, and the decisions the mill owners had to make. Beginning as early as the early 1920’s papers were reporting changing work conditions that angered workers.[17] Those in New England were feeling these changes, specifically those in the Lewiston textile mills. In the February 3^rd issue of Le Messager, Lewiston’s Franco-American, French language newspaper, headlines read, “Réduction de Salaires à Lewiston” and “les heures de travail seront en même temps augmentées.”[18] On the same page of the paper there was mention of a possible general textile strike proposed by Thomas McMahon, the president of the UTWA.[19] Though this was only in 1922, there was concern over these changes to the lives of factory workers. The changes were being made mostly to compete with textile mills in the South[20], which were newer to the scene and were able to produce the same goods at a lower rate simply because cotton was grown there. Since the mills were also newer than those in the North, they had access to newer technology and machinery, as well as generally cheaper labor. Little did workers in the northeast know, but the South was also beginning to see changes in the workplace. As reported in Le Messager in 1922,

La concurrence du sud est particulièrement sérieuse. Salaires plus bas et heures plus nombreuses donnent l’avantage aux fabricants de là-bas. Dans le sud, l’industrie textile a subi des réductions beaucoup plus drastiques que celle de la Nouvelle-Angleterre. La situation est très grave et on doit y remédier. Au moment actuel, le fabricant de cotonnades du nord est hautement saigné blanc.[21]

This is important to understand because when the General Textile Strike began in 1934, it began in the South, with their grievances. It was also more violent and strong in the South because, compared to the cutbacks and grievances of the North, they had it worse for a longer period of time.

The Franco-American feeling towards striking, at least the feeling of the more traditional older workers, can be seen in the pages of Le Messager around the time of the proposed strike in 1922. The paper mentioned that many workers who were against the changes did not want to have a strike, but simply wanted to show their opposition to the decisions. Even at this time in places throughout New England they were not too keen on the idea of a general strike.[22] In this same article the subject of having a strike was approached via the opinion of an older Franco-American factory worker.

Le proverbe dit qu’on obtient plus par la douceur que par la force; je crois qu’il vaut mieux se taire et accepter cette mesure pour le moment que de crier, chômeur peut être plusieurs mois et l’accepter ensuite après avoir eu de la misère. Quand bien même on accepterait cette réduction, cela ne devrait pas empêcher le bureau général de l’Union de discuter la question avec l’association des manufacturiers, car la baisse n’a pas été décidée par les manufacturiers de la Nouvelle-Angleterre. Ce qui signifie bel et bien une entente entre les différents propriétaires.[23]

This statement reflected the thought that many workers at this time were not ready to be involved in something like a general strike. Though they may have agreed that the basis of the strike was just, they did not believe that going against factory leadership was correct. The fact that this man based his position on the words of a proverb shows how his feelings were based in the past, and most likely in religious teachings. It was also felt at this time that a general strike such as the one proposed for 1922 would not make a difference in the condition in Maine, and therefore workers there should not risk their positions to be involved in it.[24] An important insight from the proposed strike of 1922 is the low level of interest among textile workers in Lewiston. Still, newspapers reported that many workers were opposed to the changes in wages. On February 10, 1922 Le Messager stated that “Il n’y a pas eu vote official sur la question de la grève, mais les nombreux assistants semblaient être unanimement en faveur de résister à la réduction de salaire qui viendra en vigueur lundi.”[25] This made it evident that workers were not in favor of maltreatment, even if they were not at the point of taking action in 1922.

As time did pass and the Great Depression ascended onto the working communities of America, workers’ concerns about cost of living expenses became even heavier. The pressures they felt during stable economic times became stronger as other stresses were added to their lives. Whereas before they may have felt that things would improve over time if they just let them run their course, during the Depression feelings began to change.

The act that set these feelings and frustrations into place was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), of June 1933. This act was passed to help the weak economy, “to encourage national industrial recovery, to foster fair competition, and to provide for the construction of certain useful public works, and for other purposes.”[26] What this meant was that union organization was now allowed and encouraged, and cooperation between corporations was also encouraged, which included the suspension of anti-trust acts and laws.[27] This act will be discussed in further detail later on in this thesis.

The actual strike began to unfold in Alabama on September 1^st, 1934, which was the planned start date for the strike. It was the, “single largest industrial action in the history of American labor.”[28] The workers in Alabama did not want to sit back and accept that their bosses were not regarding the laws concerning workweek limitations or pay minimums. The UTWA, led by McMahon, launched the strike, and many workers in the South followed, but it took a little longer for real action in the North. By September 8 textile workers in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, had voted to join in on the strike.[29] Since Woonsocket was one of the most powerful ethnically based textile centers in the Northeast, their activity must have prompted more interest, and in some cases, concern, over what other workers were going to do. In many locations like Woonsocket, police action was heavy and violence was a preferred method of getting the message across.

As the East Coast was planning for this strike, the fear of many people in Maine and the Northeast in general was evident in their daily newspaper coverage of its developments. Different newspapers, depending on how they allied themselves, showed different perspectives on how the strike was developing.[30] Some seemed positive that Mainers would never involve themselves in such a strike, while others seemed more excited about the coming events. For example, a headline in Le Messager on August 29^th, 1934, insisted that the good sense of the local workers would be present in their decision-making.[31]Underneath this headline they posed a somewhat controversial statement, which read:

Il convient de les en féliciter chaleureusement. –Il convient aussi de rendre hommage au chef courageux de notre municipalité, le maire Wiseman, dont l’attitude mérite les plus vifs éloges, aux dévoués pasteurs de nos paroisses qui sont toujours sur la brèche lorsque le bien-être de leurs ouailles est compromis. –“Le Messager” est heureux d’avoir pu apporter sa loyale contribution à une cause juste entre toutes.[32]

This statement seems to imply that the decision of the Mayor and the clergy was fine, but that the newspaper leaned more towards the side of action. Further on in the article they mentioned that the cause the South was striking for was just, but that the North should not involve itself unnecessarily. Le Messager seemed to be taking the position that the clergy did not want to suppress the rights of the workers, but that they felt that striking was not the correct method of obtaining and maintaining the rights.

In relation to the other states involved, Maine’s involvement was considered minimal, but for this state, which had previously not seen much strike activity, it was quite eventful. Though the General Textile Strike did spread to Maine, it was very different here. The reasons for its start elsewhere were also felt by Maine textile workers, but they acted a bit differently than workers in other states. Maine workers have always been considered less assertive, and when it came to the labor movement we were known as “conservative Maine.”[33] The strike in Maine never reached the violent levels it did in some of the southern states but the conditions and treatment that spurred the violence there was also present in the Maine industrial centers. Though in comparison the strike in Maine may seem insignificant or trivial, for a state that previously had not seen this sort of event, on this large of a scale, to be involved at all is quite significant. After about a week only 2,700 Maine workers were striking, while 19,300 were working.[34] These numbers were still significant. Numbers of strikers in places like Massachusetts and Rhode Island were much higher, but they had initially been expected to participate in the strike, whereas Maine had initially been written off.

Most strike action in Maine took place in Biddeford, Brunswick, Waterville, Westbrook, and Augusta, with only a few workers leaving the factories in Lewiston. Most of these communities had Franco-American populations, as well as workers from other ethnic groups. In total, about 10,000 Maine workers left their jobs at one point or another over the strike.[35] The Maine mills involved were quite important in their respective areas, though most of the striking workers came from the woolen mills and not the cotton mills as in the South. Many cotton mill workers did not feel as aligned and linked to the woolen mill workers, as to their fellow cotton mill workers. This most likely did not affect their decision to strike, or to not strike, because they were concerned with the situation within their own mills. As far as violent action in Maine, there was not too much. National Guardsmen were on call in case things grew out of hand, which they did not. They also were sent to stop the supposed strike influencers the UTWA brought in to try to make Maine heed the call. Though to many townspeople and outsiders it may have seemed frightening, the National Guard members were simply there to guard the mills. Some towns, like Waterville, simply utilized police to patrol the factories.[36]

A big question surrounding the strike is why the workers needed to resort to striking when they hadn’t before. The union leaders’’s presence was very strong and convincing in most places, so when McMahon and the UTWA gave the call to strike, most immediately followed suit. The UTWA wanted the strike to have maximum impact, so they sent representatives to evaluate the situations in all states up and down the East Coast. Though they were initially unsure about how important a role Maine would play in this effort, they did send representatives who were enthusiastic about making Maine count on the national level. Labor organizers from New York, like Ferdinand Sylvia, and Rhode Island, like Horace Riviere[37] from the American Federation of Labor were sent to various places to assist in the cause of the UTWA. These leaders said that,

Our men have surveyed the situation in Lewiston and the reports are that there is sentiment for a strike. The reason this has not been accomplished sooner is because our leaders here have been handicapped in numbers and assistance. With the situation well in hand for the union in Rhode Island we can now turn our attention to Maine.[38]

These leaders felt that the efforts in Maine had been too scattered and that they had needed to focus in on one area, such as Lewiston, in order to improve their chances of a successful strike. There was a Maine Federation of Labor but the national leaders did not seem to think they had the numbers to make a big impact. These strike leaders even planned to bring in “flying squadrons”[39] from places like New York to help facilitate the strike in Maine. When the National Guard caught wind of this, they sent troops out to prevent the groups from entering the state. Because of this, the strike occurred quite differently in Maine.

The General Textile strike began drawing to a close after approximately three weeks. Le Messager printed an article on September 21 detailing actions being made in Washington to end the strike. The newspaper outlined the Winant agreement, the report created for negotiations, which recommended the following: creation of an impartial three person mediation bureau; a study by the Department of Labor and the Federal Trade Commission to asses the textile industry to see if higher workers salaries could be possible; controls and regulations on the “stretch out”[40] system, suspending it until February of 1935; a study on the minimum salary of employees according to their class in the factory; and immediate cessation of the strike.[41] The strike was officially concluded on September 22,^nd 1935. The strike activity had effects that lasted beyond the month of September. The success of the textile union leadership in many areas, through the strike activity, spurred increased membership. As Gerstle says, “French-Canadian workers joined the ITU in large numbers after the strike. From late 1934 through 1936, the union increased in size by 50 percent…making the ITU one of the most powerful labor organizations in the state.”[42] The General Textile Strike of 1934, along with other events of labor unrest, brought about the National Labor Relations act of 1935, which essentially answered the concerns of the general strike and the Winant Agreement.[43]

What Made the Strike in Maine Possible: Economic, Political, Social, and Religious Changes

The attitudes of Franco-Americans living in Maine, and most likely those in other communities throughout the Northeast, did become more class focused.[44] This happened for a multitude of reasons, which include economic changes, changes instituted by Roosevelt’s New Deal, and cultural and communal changes, like those within the Catholic Church. The confluence of all of these changes at this specific time led to a change of feelings for the Franco-American ethnic group. These did not~~is was not a sudden change that~~ happened overnight, but were the result of~~rather~~ a series of smaller, cause-and-effect type changes that led to an overall shift in ideas and attitudes. Franco-Americans~~They~~ did not instantly drop all previous cultural heritage, involvement, or association, but slowly became more open to “American” ways, or found ways to make a mélange of Franco and American ways, a blend that~~which~~ was unique to them.

The Great Depression of course changed the lives of many people in America but had a unique effect on those who were in the labor force and in factory work and who were concerned with keeping the jobs they were lucky enough to have. As Gerstle said, “A job and a workplace give an individual a class identity.”[45] Many wanted to join forces and use their collective bargaining power to get what they believed they deserved from their bosses. The need for some say in their livelihood directly correlated with the establishment of unions, and the increase in membership of those already in place~~existing~~. Gerstle also emphasized this thought by saying,

The underemployed of the 1930s…more easily understood that their fate as workers was intimately linked to business decisions made by their foremen. They recognized or at least intuited that underemployment was a complex, social phenomenon and not simply an indication of individual inadequacies. And they encountered, on a daily or almost daily basis, an individual-a foreman, a personal director-with the power to decide their fate. Such an authority figure offered them a focus for their anger and frustration.[46]

Regardless if they were Franco-American or not, their wages, in order to keep their families alive, were necessary and it was worth shifting group loyalties in order to get what they needed from the workplace. Though work conditions were by no means great before the Great Depression, the economic stress made the issues stand out even more. However, tThere were definite changes in the conditions over time. As Henry Boucher, a textile worker from Woonsocket, Rhode Island, said of his early days as a textile worker in the early 1900’s:

The work was not hard, and I enjoyed the companionship of the men in the card room. After I had worked there for a few months I was given a better job tending the finishers, and another young lad was hired to do my job…In the mills at the time working conditions were not as strict as they are now.[47]

The tough economic times that were to come did change the way workers were treated and the way the industry functioned overall. As one gentleman from Lewiston, Mr. Romeo Boisvert, who worked in the textile mills there for many years, said of the way things were done during that stressful time:

During the Depression the workers would go on the floor, and the boss would pick out who was to work that day. That was the reason for [the organization of] the union. The foreman would select whomever he wanted to work. He would pick you out from the floor. In the mill, on each floor, there was a space where all the employees would be standing. The foreman would pick out employees, “O.K., you work today,” regardless of your years of service to the company.[48]

Because of this unfairness concerning seniority and the fact that those who were employed might not have got their chance to earn their wage, the very wage they relied on for survival month to month, the workers were more prone to joining an organization that might be able to protect these rights. Though this in itself may seem vary unfair, there was more to the pick-and-choose way thaen just chance. There were particular bosses who favored some over others and those who simply did not care about the worker’s individual situation. As Mrs. Mélanie Côté of Lewiston said, “Of course when you had no union, the boss would come up to you and say, ‘you’re fired’ right off…before the start of the unions they had their favorites.”[49] These sorts of unfair practices, at least in some ways, would soon be illegal because of new legislation enacted by Roosevelt’s New Deal. One should not assume that all mill bosses were unfair, but in many cases they were being told that they had to lay people off, even though they knew it would make things difficult for the men and their families, and even though they did not want to. As said by Henry Boucher from Woonsocket, the Great Depression was a very difficult and uncertain time. He described a scene in which the foreman began approaching workers during the workday.

…the foreman slowly walked over to me and said, “You know what I have to say. I have a list of men who are to be laid off, and your name is on it…This is no reflection upon your work which has been good, and I’ll be glad to hire you back as soon as the work picks up.” I replied, “Well, I guess all the fellows here are in the same boat that I’m in. All of us are broke. This will mean plenty of hardship for my family.”[50]

This time of difficulties would hopefully be over soon, but the difficulties spurred them to unite to hopefully get some relief.

There is no doubt that the New Deal injected a feeling of hope and empowerment into the lives of many workers. As mentioned before, the NIRA was a major catalyst to the General Strike of 1934, and the shift in feeling towards labor at this time. Section 7(a) is considered to be the most important part of this new act, the one that defined the right to collective bargaining. The act stated “that employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents…”[51] This would, in theory, solve the issue of pressures from employers. It also stated that no one should be forced to join a labor union of any sort, and that employers had to follow the rules established concerning maximum hours worked per week and minimum pay rates.[52] The policies put into place by NIRA were controlled and enforced by the National Recovery Administration (NRA). Most workers felt that these establishments were great advances in their workplace wellbeing, even when not all employers followed standards set by the NRA. One reason why the passage of the NIRA changed the minds of so many workers was their faith in President Roosevelt. As Gerstle proposed in his book, Working-Class Americanism,

The passage of the NIRA and the coming of the New Deal had aroused such widespread faith in Roosevelt’s genuine concern for ordinary Americans and his desire to use the federal government to improve their lot…that most workers in America were not prepared, in 1933 or 1934, to believe that Roosevelt had failed them. Instead, their anger increasingly focused on employers for violating both the spirit of Roosevelt’s Administration and the law that the Congress had passed.[53]

On July 14, 1934, Le Messager printed an article that discussed the success of Roosevelt’s politics and their support throughout Maine and the rest of the United States. The article stated that it was quite surprising that Maine was in support of Roosevelt and his New Deal.[54] This sort of support came only after much scrutiny of the New Deal policies. Of course there was the initial support based on the idea of something new; it gave hope. This support was further solidified after mill owners began disobeying the ideas proposed by the NRA. This put the government in the good light, and the mill owners in a bad light. Though many people, especially in New England, were not explicitly in favor~~support~~ of a strike, they were in support of their rights, which they felt were actually being looked after by the Roosevelt Administration. Many reports before the NIRA stated that the subsequent changes were the only way to solve the issue, and people believed this.[55] Follow-up reports also proved that these changes could be successful, if only they were obeyed.[56] Since workers had seen the glimmer of hope for more secure employment, they felt the need to protect that vision, even if it meant opposing their own bosses and employers. The fact that the New Deal labor policy was developed not only to help the workers with their struggles, but also to help get the economy out of its rut, made it seem more legitimate and worth fighting for. Workers wanted to make sure these new rules were followed, to improve not only ~~only to improve~~ their own lot, but that of the country as well.[57] The workers were beginning to unite as working class citizens in order to reach these goals.

There were many cultural and societal changes that affected how Franco-Americans of this time, and in this place, saw themselves and their situation. One possible reason for the change in ideology, or the increased numbers of people who were going “against the norm,” could be that the majority was now U.S born, not direct immigrants from Canada.[58] This generation was not only young and beginning to enter the work force at this time, but it was also more accepting of, and influenced by American ideas. As Richard proposed, this allowed them to acculturate more easily into United States society, which would suggest that they were more open to union organizing, and were drifting away from ideas that, for those who were born in Canada, had been held up as absolute truth. For Franco-Americans~~those~~ born in Maine, the American influence had been there from the beginning and they felt from a young age the pressure to move away from la survivance simply because of the English language influence in their lives and the power struggle between two cultures.

Another cultural change happening at this time was the involvement of women on the political scene. Women won the vote in 1920 with the suffrage movement, which gave them a political identity they had never felt before. This new power could have been partially responsible for their heightened stance on the labor scene, and in the workplace in general. Women were also gaining a more active role in labor unions at the time. The simple fact that they were more social beings led to their success in organizing and participating in the unions’ social functions and gatherings.[59]

Politics also played a role in the changing of ideas. During this time there was an increase in the election of Franco-American Democratic leaders in the Lewiston-Auburn area.[60] Franco-Americans, who were previously conservative but who still wanted their minority status to change, opened up others to these ideas as well. Political identity could have translated to more union-focused identity with talk of workers rights and workplace actions in general. Mayor Wiseman, who was not opposed to fighting the good fight for the worker, helped translate political ideas into union support, even if he did not condone striking activity.

Finally, the most important group to affect change was the Catholic Church. Though the church did not renounce its previous position on labor organization and involvement, certain clergy members were personally more sympathetic to the workers’ cause. The clergy did not want the factories or the economy to suffer, but did not feel that intervening through strikes was the beast option. It is not as though the church changed its doctrine, but rather that the influence of American culture and “Americanization” overpowered some of the rigid followers. Some priests decided that their alliance with the working class was worth strengthening and that they could still be good Catholics without following each and every action proposed by the Bishops. Richard also suggests the presence of Irish-Catholic clergy, and their position in the Maine church hierarchy, played a role in speeding up the assimilation of some Franco-American parishioners.[61]

As discussed earlier, the labor unions spread organizers into all the textile states in order to promote their case, which they said was also the cause of the worker. There had been a labor presence in the area since the Knights of Labor in the 1880’s. Other groups sprang up as well but always had small followings throughout the state, and not necessarily Franco-Americans. This presence could include hosting social events or similar occasions to try to recruit new members. Though this may not have immediately converted Franco-Americans, or anyone for that matter, to join in immediately, the fact that there was a presence was another factor to add to the list.

The Right Place and the Right Time

These changes and sentiments began to come together for the Franco-American workers at this time, and as a result many began to take action to secure their station. As far as feeling the effects of the economic changes, it came down to job security and its necessity, and if they had to participate in a strike to do that, they did. As Mr. Boisvert from Lewiston said:

I was on the “black list,” and I was due for a promotion. I gave it up because I knew that was the only way to go in order to give the employees job security. I felt personally that I owed more to the workers than I did to the management. My views and convictions were with the workers.[62]

This is evidence of the fact that sympathies were shifting away from what they had been. In the past, workers, especially Franco-American ones, had been extremely loyal to the bosses, whereas the statement by Mr. Boisvert shows that that loyalty was no more, but instead now with the fellow workers, in many cases despite ethnicity or cultural background. The workers were uniting based on class, not ethnicity. Gary Gerstle proposed a theory for this concerning Franco-American workers in Woonsocket:

The Americanization pressures in the 1920s had freed French-Canadian culture from the grasp of an archconservative, middle-class leadership, and years of economic hardship caused by a declining cotton textile industry prompted some French-Canadian workers to locate a threat to their survival not in external political authority but in external economic powers. Such a reformation of ethnic doctrines had surfaced first in the Sentinelle Affair; it surfaced again in the growing conviction of Woonsocket workers that the French textile magnates who ran mills in their communities were “aristocrats” who despised the French-Canadian workers they employed; and it surfaced a third time [in] the riot that began at the mill gates of Woonsocket Rayon in September 1934.[63]

It is not known whether these exact sentiments were echoed in Maine, but it is known that many workers felt that it was now workers versus mill owner, unifying them as a working class, and not through ethnic grouping.

As time went on, the pressures of American society became more and more a part of the daily life of Franco-Americans. The Petit Canadas became less exclusive, and the power of the Church became less rigid and overarching. Thanks to the changes that occurred during this general period, the choice to organize in labor movements was no longer culturally or ethnically driven, but instead was motivated by the desire to protect workplace rights and to improve workplace conditions. Though the newly formed group of workers may have been small, it was still prepared to work for its rights, and would only grow stronger as time went on.

Conclusion

The history of the labor movement in Maine is complicated. Though the majority of textile factory workers in Maine were of Franco-American or other ethnic backgrounds, they were not typically involved in union organization. Their strong, predetermined, cultural beliefs had shaped their feelings on this issue for many years, but changes going on around them made it easier for them to make changes in their lifestyles and alliances. The largest change was the Great Depression and the New Deal. The need for change was backed by the need for economic survival, and this was made easier by the governmental changes enacted by Roosevelt and the NRA. These alone were not the only things that made this shift possible. Those events, combined with the weakening of church power over parishioners, and assimilation into the “American” way of life, made it seem less treasonous to become involved in labor organizations. Franco-Americans were defining themselves differently, becoming active in the community in new and different ways, and were even part of a new generation born and raised in the United States-a generation that had grown accustomed to the mixed traditions and customs that surrounded them.

Though the General Textile Strike cannot be seen as the single event that turned Franco-Americans to labor organization, it did fall at the right time in history to help get the word out that workplace rights were very important and in need of protecting, and that fighting for them might be necessary for survival in some cases. Some Franco-Americans chose to identify with the labor movement before this time, as seen by those involved in Les Chevaliers du Travail, and yet others would never feel comfortable forging this alliance even after the 1930’s. Regardless, it is undeniable that this was a time for change in labor and in the work force. Though labor standards would be turned on their heads with the arrival of World War Two, the period just before was one of growth and discovery as an industry. By surviving the Great Depression, these workers had held onto what they saw as valuable, even if they had to redefine their cultural alliances. The changes made during this time were not all bad, but only different, and though that scared some Franco-Americans, some realized that change would be needed for survival, be it survival in the workplace or in American culture in general.

Bibliography

100 Milestone Documents. “National Industrial Recovery Act(1933).”

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc/php?doc=66.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=66.

100 Milestone Documents. “National Labor Relations Act (1935).”

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=67.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=67

Doty, C. Stewart. The First Franco-Americans: New England Life Histories from the Federal Writers Project 1938-1939. Orono: University of Maine at Orono Press, 1985.

Frenette, Yves. “Understanding the French-Canadians of Lewiston 1869-1900,” Maine Historical Society Quarterly 25, no. 4 (Spring 1986): 198-229.

Gerstle, Gary. Working Class Americanism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Irons, Janet Christine. Testing the New Deal: The General Textile Strike of 1934 in the American South. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

LaFlamme, Mathew R. “From Colony to Class: The Changing Consciousness of Franco-American Textile Workers in Waterville, Maine, 1934-1954” MA thesis, University of Maine, 1995.

Lewiston Daily Sun

Lewiston Evening Journal

Le Messager

Richard, Mark Paul. “From Canadien to American: The Acculturation of French-Canadian Descendants in Lewiston, Maine, 1866 to the Present” PhD. thesis, Duke University, 2001.

Richard, Mark Paul. Loyal but French: The Negotiation of Identity by French-Canadian Descendants in the United States. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2008.

Richard, Mark Paul. “Out of ‘“Little Canada’”: The Assimilation of Sainte-Famille Parish Lewiston, Maine (1923-1994)” MA thesis, University of Maine, 1994.

Salamond, John A. The General Textile Strike of 1934: From Maine to Alabama. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002.

Scontras, Charles A. Organized Labor in Maine: Twentieth Century Origins. Orono: University of Maine Press, 1985.

Scontras, Charles A. Organized Labor in Maine: War, Reaction, Depression, and the Rise of the CIO 1914-1942. Orono: University of Maine Press, 2002.

Searles, James W., ed., Immigrants from the North: Franco-Americans Recall the Settlement of their Canadian Families in the Mill Towns of New England. Bath: Hyde School, 1982.

Authors Biography

Gabrielle Foster has lived in Maine her entire life, growing up in Oakland and then continuing on to the University of Maine in 2007. Her love of history began at a young age through the discovery of historical novels. This passion grew with her throughout childhood and adolescence and she chose to continue to pursue that interest in college as well. Gabrielle plans to continue on to graduate school upon graduation and study History, with a focus on Museum Studies in order to spread historical knowledge in an interesting and non-traditional way. She believes that more people could grow to love history if presented it in a more creative and applicable way.

[1] Charles A. Scontras, Organized Labor in Maine: Twentieth Century Origins (Orono: University of Maine Press, 1985).

Charles A. Scontras, Organized Labor in Maine: War, Reaction, Depression, and the Rise of the CIO 1914-1942 (Orono: University of Maine Press, 2002).

[2] Gary Gerstle, Working Class Americanism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

[3] C. Stewart Doty, The First Franco-Americans: New England Life Histories from the Federal Writers Project 1938-1939 (Orono: University of Maine at Orono Press, 1985).

[4] Mathew R. LaFlamme, “From Colony to Class: The Changing Consciousness of Franco-American Textile Workers in Waterville, Maine, 1934-1954”(MA thesis, University of Maine, 1995).

[5] Mark Paul Richard, “From Canadien to American: The Acculturation of French-Canadian Descendants in Lewiston, Maine, 1866 to the Present” (PhD. thesis, Duke University, 2001) pg. 396 footnote.

[9] Richard, “From Canadien to American.”

[10] James W. Searles, Immigrants from the North: Franco-Americans Recall the Settlement of their Canadian Families in the Mill Towns of New England (Bath: Hyde School, 1982), 32.

[12] Mark Paul Richard, “Out of ‘“Little Canada’”: The Assimilation of Sainte-Famille Parish Lewiston, Maine (1923-1994)” (MA thesis, University of Maine, 1994) Abstract.

[13] Richard, “From Canadien to American.” 131.

[14] Richard. “From Canadien to American.” 132.

[15] Lewiston Evening Journal. August 29, 1934.

[16] Lewiston Evening Journal. August 30, 1934.

[18] Le Messager. February 3, 1922. “Salaries reduced in Lewiston” and “Work hours will be cut at the same time.” The cut of work hours refers to factories in Manchester while the cut to salaries was twenty percent across the board.

[21] Le Messager. February 3, 1922. “The concurrence in the south is particularly serious. Lower salaries and longer hours give the advantage to textile mills there. In the south, the textile industry has undergone more drastic reductions than those in New England. The situation is very serious and needs to be fixed. At this time the northern textile mills are bleeding white.”

[23] Le Messager. February 8, 1922. “The proverb says that one obtains more from kindness than from force; I believe that it is better to shut up and accept this change for the moment than to cry, be unemployed for possibly a few months and then accept it after having suffered. Even if we were to accept this reduction, it would not prevent the general office of the Union from discussing the question with the manufacturers because the manufacturers of New England did not decide the decision. It is a deal between the different proprietors.

[25] Le Messager. February 10, 1922. “There was not an official vote concerning the question of the strike, but most of the assistants seemed to be unanimously in favor of resisting the salary reduction that will come into effect on Monday.

[26] 100 Milestone Documents, “National Industrial Recovery Act(1933),” http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=66.

[28] Gerstle, Working-Class Americanism, 127.

[29] Gerstle, Working-Class Americanism, 130.

[30] Le Messager was considered to be an independently aligned newspaper, while the Lewiston Evening Journal is considered to be ‘Independent Republican’.

[32] Le Messager. August 29, 1934. “[The decision] should be applauded warmly. Homage should also be paid to the courageous leader of our municipality, Mayor Wiseman, whose attitude deserves the highest praise, and to the dedicated pastors of our parishes who are always on the go when the welfare of their flock is compromised. “The Messenger” is happy to have made its fair contribution to a just cause among all.”

[33] John A. Salamond, The General Textile Strike of 1934: From Maine to Alabama (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002), 51.

[34] Lewiston Evening Journal. September 19, 1934.

[37] Lewiston Evening Journal. September 14, 1934.

[38] Lewiston Evening Journal. September 14, 1934.

[40] Stretching out was the concept of getting more work out of the workers by stretching them thinner throughout the factory and over longer hours each week.

[42] Gerstle. Working-Class Americanism, 138-139.

[43] 100 Milestone Documents, “National Labor Relations Act (1935).” http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=67.

[44] Mathew R. LaFlamme, “From Colony to Class.”

[45] Gerstle, Working-class Americanism, 102.

[46] Gerstle, Working-Class Americanism, 102-103.

[50] Doty, The First Franco-Americans, 138-139.

[51] 100 Milestone Documents, “National Industrial Recovery Act(1933),” http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=66.

[52] 100 Milestone Documents, “National Industrial Recovery Act(1933),” http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=66.

[53] Gerstle, Working-Class Americanism, 128.

[55] Lewiston Evening Journal. October. 2, 1933, Oct. 3, 1933.

[56] Lewiston Evening Journal. January. 1, 1934.

[57] Janet Christine Irons, Testing the New Deal: the General Textile Strike of 1934 in the American South (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 50-51.

[58] Richard, “From Canadien to American,.” 277-278.

[59] Gerstle, Working-Class Americanism, 202-204.

[60] Richard, “From Canadien to American.” 358.

[61] Richard, “Out of ‘“Little Canada’”.” 12.

[63] Gerstle, Working-Class Americanism, 134.