Labor Leaders Form the Committee for Industrial Organization

A Committee Within an Existing Federation

On November 9, 1935, labor leaders formed the Committee for Industrial Organization within the American Federation of Labor. John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers was a central figure. The immediate goal was to promote organization across whole industries rather than leave workers divided strictly by craft. The committee was not yet the independent Congress of Industrial Organizations known from later history. Its founding began an institutional struggle over how a changing industrial workforce could gain representation through a labor movement whose structures had developed under different conditions.

Why Mass Production Raised New Questions

A large factory employed people whose work was interdependent but whose skills and job titles differed. Organizing only some crafts could leave much of the workforce outside a shared bargaining structure. Supporters of industrial unionism argued that a union should encompass the plant or industry and make the workers' collective dependence visible. Their opponents worried about jurisdiction, standards and control of the federation. These were not disputes over a label alone. The answer affected who could speak for a workplace and how employers would negotiate with the people keeping it in operation.

From Proposal to Organizing

The committee supported efforts in major industries, but organizing a factory required more than agreement at a leadership meeting. Workers needed local networks, money, confidence and ways to withstand employer resistance. Different industries presented different obstacles. Success could strengthen the argument for the new approach, while disputes over authority within the federation deepened. The period therefore combined pressure from below with decisions made by established union leaders. Neither the national committee nor individual workplace action could supply the whole explanation on its own. The date also shows that institutions can begin as a challenge from inside an existing organization. Founders did not need to create a fully separate federation before testing a strategy. The subsequent break was a historical development, not an initial condition. Preserving that sequence makes the conflict over organization more intelligible than using the later name from the start.

Why the Name Changed Later

The break with the AFL and formation of an independent federation followed over subsequent years. The AFL and CIO eventually merged in 1955. Those later events explain why the initials are familiar, but should not make the 1935 committee appear already independent at its first meeting. November 9 is a point at which a strategy obtained an organization able to pursue it. The consequences came through campaigns, strikes and bargaining that tested whether workers linked by production could be organized together despite differences in skill, background and earlier union jurisdiction.