Labor Union Debates Political Independence
The Western Central Labor Union clashes over whether to endorse candidates for public office, citing a struggle to stay free from the influence of city hall appointments.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The proposition of George E. Riggins to amend the constitution of the Western Central Labor Union so as to prohibit the indorsement or condemnation of candidates for public office brought out quite a discussion last evening. Riggins maintained that it was inexpedient to indorse any man, as the union could not consistently discriminate without injuring itself. He suggested the recent protest against the appointment of a Mr. Bridges as street commissioner was merely a convenient excuse for Mayor Ronald to abandon a campaign promise. Opponents, including Abe Spring, argued that the union must retain the power to protest against candidates who are avowed enemies of trade unions. An amendment was finally carried to strike out the clause relating to protesting against candidates, and the proposition as amended was adopted.
“He would not have any objection to the appointment of Bridges to any office in which he would not have control of a large number of men; but in such a position as street commissioner, he was opposed to the appointment of an avowed enemy of trade unions.”
This debate mirrors current tensions in Seattle labor politics, where the balance between maintaining ideological purity and engaging in pragmatic electoral strategy remains a central, unresolved dilemma for civic organizations.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.