La Follette Committee
[6] Detective agencies and those utilizing industrial espionage resorted to the protection against radicalism, exposure of theft, deterrence of sabotage, and improvement of labor-management relations as justification of their actions.
By preventing workers from freely gathering in public spaces, employers who opposed them with the use of munitions and other forms of physical coercion denied them their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
Witnesses in industrial communities revealed to the committee the abusive power of private police; their constant harassment and use of physical violence repressed the First Amendment rights of citizens.
Paul Taylor, one of the left-liberal staff members appointed by La Follette and his Marine Corps friend, urged him to investigate the West Coast; without the necessary funding though, the committee's chairman was doubtful.
Despite La Follette urging his investigative team to search for infringements on constitutional rights of workers rather than the political affiliations of employers, his work became deemed as a backing to communism and became resented by those harboring anti-union ideals.
Despite strong resentment to the committee's efforts, it succeeded in depicting the premise of the violations: California laborers of the 1930s were being denied constitutional rights by employers and anti-union officials.
By calling witnesses to the stand in an effort to expose American industrial relations, the committee supported the CIO, as both organizations strove to achieve a common goal of mass unionization.
When Myron Taylor of United States Steel publicly announced that his company would make a legal arrangement with the CIO, the La Follette Committee received wide spread acknowledgment and credit.
Similarly, the CIO had no way of securing itself a victory over oppressive labor practices, and the mutually beneficial associations shared among the two organizations proved vital.
The La Follette Committee's handling of General Motors (GM) exemplifies the struggles of workers whose intent of organizing made the company infringe upon their civil liberties.
With word of oppressive practices, most notably espionage, reaching the founders of the committee before its official establishment, the decision to examine the events in Flint, Michigan, was a unanimous one.
Reports obtained by the committee also confirmed the involvement of local law enforcement, as they maintained their own espionage system set to infiltrate sit-down strikes in the state.
The La Follette Committee began its hearings of General Motors on February 15, with intentions of bolstering public opinion of the United Automobile Workers' (UAW) strikes (Auerbach 14).
[6] The hearings called for the testimony of rebellious spies and UAW organizers, such as Joseph B. Ditzel, to express their disapproval of GM labor policy and their negation of constitutional rights: "[Ditzel] could not rent a hall in Saginaw to address the automobile workers; a gang of toughs in Bay City forcibly detained him in his hotel room; he was trailed constantly in Flint before his car was sideswiped and three organizers were sent to the hospital with serious injuries".
[6] The committee's hearings uncovered the expenses of GM's espionage, its scrutiny of labor policies, and its mistreatment of workers, which publicly demonstrated the injustices toward the union.
