CONTENTS - ouroboros ponderosa

III I I f\JI( INr/ .. \ I It IN If'! ;\r..II !!14 \
' .
' I I('["l' 11](' Al l. did IItli alkmpt sLt /' '( ' . Ill" .1 I 1.1/ . • ,\ . II 1 . r I!..{'S, I I worked III
ddeal icgililllatt walk -oulS ' . I . OUIS _ . !\ ( I' ,lillie ("(lIlchJ(I(( ' I II l;t 1 "'1'1 Il' h'del ;!
.
tum as a whole , ••• < nh()t'lPl'd < b' O[ . slIppressed all irllilorl'l . • I lt I · all k ;IIH I .. !iil' " 01
spontaneous movements , in 1 "'13 7. an< ' I 1
" Y}4 especmll y th osc III ' sted alld
ges movement on the COilSt." II
ruhber. Thc one exception was the Brid- :, '
IS far from clear, however th t ev;n one exceptIon occurred,
Under the leadership of H:r
dges,
th organizing of West Coasl
longshoremen had culminated ith; amos an FrancIsco general strike
of July 1934, Charles Larrowe th e manlImc
labor historian, concludes
that the only "benefit" obta ' ine d' by
t he
workers , wa s th elr ' b emg ' broughl
'
Ull der
union contract' , "Th e t erms under WhICh the ' pro 1 onged, vIOlenl
'
stn k c was settled were similar t b e sure, to some of the proposals t()r
setUement made before the st' e began,
Looked at in this perspective
.' .d
i
t might seem that the strike ' se,:," no purpose, But looked at in the
larger contcxt of collective bargammg,
the stnkc was both unavoidable
and necessary,"
' "
The settlement of the 1934 strike mark ed the begmnmg at a change in
consciousness for San Fra nCISCO ' employers
,
' though wa t er f' rant strife
C