Not surprisingly, automation proved the central concern of last week's fifth biennial convention of the AFL-CIO. The federation's president George Meany established the meeting's general tone in his opening address. Automation, he said, offers "no element of blessing.... It is rapidly becoming a real curse to society."

Labor has obvious reasons for fear. Since 1957, the federation's membership has dropped by 344,000, although the non-farm work force has risen from 52.9 million to 57.4 million; in the past six years the United Auto Workers and the United Steel Workers have lost 183,000 and 195,000 members respectively. Automation has been the primary cause of both declines.

Moreover, already 55% of the labor force cannot find employment; automation and increased efficiency may soon reduce job opportunities even further. For example, the panel appointed to arbitrate the dispute in the railroad industry probably will decide to reduce the size of work crews, if only slightly. Similar recommendations seem certain from the advisory committee studying the shipping industry. In fact, in most industries some loss of jobs seems probable. And merely to minimize the loss of jobs will require long and costly strikes, such as the New York and Cleveland newspaper disputes.

Meany presented two proposals designed to counter the effects of automation: a reduction of the work week to 35 hours and an increased hourly wage. In addition, his speech contained an implicit warning to union leaders that unless they fought every attempt to install new equipment, even these two proposals would become meaningless. Meany's stand, with which the other leaders present agreed, reflects labor's growing resistance to automation. Two years ago, when New York's local Electrical Workers Union under the leadership of Harry Van Arsdale fought for and won a 25-hour week, most other labor officials opposed the approach. They believed that it was unnecessary and that it could have an extremely inflationary effect on the economy.

Today most union leaders consider a 35-hour week necessary. Van Arsdale's appointment as temporary chairman of the convention indicates this change. "When society isn't dealing with the unemployment problem," Walter Reuther said, "the labor movement has to fight negatively for a short week. It is a negative defense mechanism."

Reuther's attitude results in part from the government's failure to develop any coherent or integrated approach to automation. In fact, most programs have paralleled Secretary of Labor Wirtz's speech to the convention. He said that "capitalism with a conscience and a government that says its business is people can meet the challenge of technology." Rather than outlining any immediate measures, he called for improving education in order to give "young Americans the skills they need in an automated work force."

The move for a shorter week and higher hourly wages is probably designed to make the national government find ways of lessening the effects of automation and to force the passage of pro-labor legislation. As Reuther said, "Labor expects some dividends for the output of energy and dollars at the polls." New York's Liberal Party, which often holds the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans and as a result is favored by both parties, recently received the support of several unions. Labor obviously wants to make its political influence felt.

Although occasionally critical of him, labor leaders thought that Kennedy understood their problems and would eventually support legislation to curb the effects of automation. They had hoped to provide him with an overwhelming majority in pro-labor districts in 1964.

Their attitude toward President Johnson is less friendly. Many, particularly the liberals such as Reuther, David Dubinsky, and Alex Rose, were very unenthusiastic about his nomination as vice-President but his performance in office has vitiated some of their fears. They will probably support him in 1964, hoping to gain his support for government action against increased unemployment and automation.

Lethargy: A Major Problem

Next to automation, what disturbs unionists most is the lethargy of the movement; Generally, labor has been unwilling to enter new areas of action, perhaps because attempts to organize white collar workers and Southern industries have been unsuccessful. Moreover, several unions, particularly in the building trades, have been unreceptive to Negroes and members of other minority groups.

With $3 billion in retirement funds and members enjoying high salaries and usually good working conditions union have become apathetic. According to Reuther, labor must now turn to broad social causes, particularly the civil rights movement, if it is to recapture its former drive. But until now union participation in civil rights has been limited to a few large unions such as the Ladies Garment Workers, the United Auto Workers, and the Sleeping Car Porters as well as numerous locals. The executive council of the AFL-CIO, however, refused to put its prestige and influence behind the March on Washington.

The old age of its leaders complicates the future of the labor movement. The average age of the members of the executive council is sixty-three, and only two younger men--Reuther and Beirnes--have achieved importance in labor's hierarchy. The retirement of men like Dubinsky, Potofsky, Meany, and Randolph will test labor's strength.

The AFL-CIO convention offers one encouraging prospect for the future, though. Never before has there been a similar unaminity among union leaders on the problems their movement faces. Even Reuther and Meany, usually in disagreement, appear to be expressing the same fears.

Of all the speakers at the convention, Philip Randolph, chairman of the "March," gave the most hopeful speech--thanking labor for its support of the civil rights drive and at the same time hinting that more could have been done. The audience's overwhelming response indicates that perhaps labor does retain its original enthusiasm.