Stop the Presses, Start Fighting!: The 1967 Newspaper Strike in Utica, New York
Articles
Stop the Presses, Start Fighting!: The 1967 Newspaper Strike in Utica, New York
Articles

Stop the Presses, Start Fighting!: The 1967 Newspaper Strike in Utica, New York

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

J.N. Cheney recounts the 1967 Utica, NY newspaper workers’ strike, arguing that the trajectory of the struggle and the demands raised by the strikers exemplify Marx’s notion of proletarian development. 

Former building of the Utica Observer-Dispatch (Kenneth C. Zirkel, 2021)

Introduction

Automation under capitalism has presented a threat to the working class consistently throughout history. The proletariat has met this development of new machinery with numerous reactions as the productive forces have changed over time, the most recent example being the current battle against corporate abuse of artificial intelligence. The proletariat must adapt how they combat the capitalists’ attempts to render human labor obsolete through technology. However, this problem does not exist in a vacuum. There’s an overlap between the issue of automation and something else found in capitalist production: the speed-up of work and the subsequent overworking of people with no additional payment.

In the summer of 1967, the city of Utica, New York witnessed such a struggle. Newspaper workers in the city were thrust into a battle against reactionary automation. These workers walked out from the newspaper’s office in protest of a plan to introduce an influx of printing presses without any accommodations for the workers already there. The resulting strike was, at the time, considered the longest to ever occur in the city’s history, lasting one hundred days.1 Adding to the rich tradition of organized labor in Central and Upstate New York, a history that remains grossly neglected by both Marxist and non-Marxist labor historians, the 1967 Utica Newspaper Strike paints a picture of how the proletariat, as a unit, can defend itself from capitalists’ incessant pursuit of cost-cutting and profit.

The Battle Begins

A lack of respect for the needs of Utica’s newspaper workers proved to be the straw to break the camel’s back, resulting in union members staging a walkout on July 15 of 1967.2 Negotiations were attempted before the union decided on the walkout, but no fruits came of that labor. Employees of the Utica Newspaper Company worked on the publishing and distribution of the Observer-Dispatch and the Utica Daily Press, two interconnected papers owned by the media company Gannett. These papers circulated in great numbers. Their weekly Sunday paper alone had a circulation of at least 60,000 during the summer of 1967, with the dailies producing smaller but still significant numbers.3 With a combined circulation figure running well over 100,000, the workload placed on the backs of the newspaper employees was substantial. The executive publisher of the two papers, Herman E. Moecker, thus tried to ensure that the two papers were amply supplied with the means to print their papers efficiently. Consequently, the Utica Newspaper Company purchased ten printing presses from a paper in Dallas, Texas in 1965, and planned to have said presses ready for office use in early 1968. However, Moecker’s conception of efficiency was defined entirely by the Company’s ability to generate profit, rather than by the quality of print or the ability of the company’s staff to keep things afloat without harming their health and safety. In reaction to the introduction of more machines and the increasing volume of papers that needed to be printed, the Company’s press workers, members of Local 58 Printing and Pressmen’s Union, demanded that two more people per machine be hired to aid in their operation of the presses. Management refused to oblige.4 With their concerns unaddressed, the union decided to stage a walkout, wildcat strike.

This wildcat strike produced an immediate effect throughout the surrounding Mohawk Valley region. Within days, the publication of both The Daily Press and the Observer-Dispatch ceased.5 Citizens of Utica and the other towns that received the Observer-Dispatch and The Daily Press were suddenly deprived of information regarding local and global news, obituaries, help-wanted ads, and other aspects of the newspaper so integral to people’s daily lives. For instance, demonstrations against the Vietnam War became more and more prevalent throughout the United States during the Summer of 1967. Residents of the Mohawk Valley who relied on these papers were left in the dark regarding some of the most significant political events of the day.

Efforts to reach some sort of settlement were made in the early stages of the strike, however no agreement could be made and the talks would ultimately fall apart. Workers continued to uphold the picket line.6 The struggle of the Pressmen’s Union was met with solidarity from members of the American Newspaper Guild (predecessor to the NewsGuild-CWA) among other groups of unionized newspaper workers. It was unknown as to when the next attempt at establishing a settlement would occur.

In less than two weeks the city of Utica was starved for information. Since advertisements were not going through the papers, local products were not being sold, and businesses throughout Utica and the surrounding areas faced a massive downturn in profitability.7 Major Mohawk Valley cultural events were also put in jeopardy. For instance, when two Major League Baseball teams passed through the region in conjunction with a Hall-of-Fame game in nearby Cooperstown, the lack of advertising in the Utica papers resulted in a diminished turnout. Perhaps the most macabre issue for the public was that of burial ceremonies. As cited in other newspapers in the state, one funeral director noted that “It isn’t unusual for us to get calls for burial plans several days after the funeral.”8 The strike made clear to the public that without the workers behind the printing presses, the most important daily information in Utica and throughout the Mohawk Valley was inaccessible.

Unfortunately, there is no available information regarding how the general public reacted to the Pressmen’s strike. However, public reception garnered by other strikes that happened in or near Utica throughout the 20th century can give us a possible glimpse. Take, for example, the Little Falls Textile Strike of 1912-1913. From October 1912 to January 1913, textile workers, primarily immigrant women, engaged in a strike effort with the help of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and the Schenectady, NY branch of the Socialist Party of America (SPA). Some mainstream outlets were sympathetic to the strikers’ cause such as the Syracuse Post-Standard, as well as more radical publications such as the Schenectady Citizen, the Buffalo Socialist, the New York Call, and the Industrial Worker. Typically though, most media sought to condemn the strikers and their more radical allies. Outlets including the Utica Herald-Dispatch, the Utica Observer, and the New York Times published pieces decrying the organizations leading the strikers as “violent trouble makers” and pushed narratives supporting the police and the reactionary American Federation of Labor (AFL), who had their own crusades against radical unionism.9

Company Retaliation

In the midst of this unprecedented halt in publication, Herman Moecker endeavored to convince several of the newspaper workers to return to their jobs and abandon their solidarity efforts with Local 58. Moecker sent out letters to 330 employees honoring the strike who refused to cross the picket line, urging them to return to work and “describing the background” of the dispute at hand. The problem with Moecker’s “background,” however, was that he spun events to appear as though the group holding a legitimate grievance was in the wrong. In a display of anti-unionism, Moecker “asserted that the Printing Pressmen’s Union, which has 14 local members, submitted ‘extreme proposals’ in a last-minute bargaining session.”10

Attempts were being made to involve mediators of various levels to reach a settlement, but the newspaper company proceeded to disrespect the striking workers and incorporate tactics tantamount to strike breaking and union busting. Moecker continued to spit in the faces of the striking pressmen and those who honored their picket line: first, by adamantly claiming that bringing in the new printing presses as “labor saving devices” made hiring new personnel unnecessary. This ignored the fact that he expected the same amount of people to work an additional ten machines, resulting in the exact opposite of saving labor when considering how much more time operating and maintaining ten more machines would require.11

Moecker and the company as a whole continued to violate not only those groups who honored the Local 58 picket line, but also several others under the newspaper’s employment who were not even involved in the dispute! Callously, Moecker announced that the Utica paper’s news departments would begin providing news stories to local radio stations and a local television station as a “public service.” This so-called “public service” completely violated the terms of the contract between the company and the American Newspaper Guild, as was subsequently pointed out by then-President of the ANG Local 129, Edward Ruffing.

Facing such attacks from Moecker, the tide of support began to shift in favor of the Pressmen. Having already stood by the side of Local 58, and suddenly finding themselves subjected to the callous actions of Herman Moecker, the American Newspaper Guild Local 62 decided that it was time to become involved on a deeper level and officially voted to join the strike on July 22.12 Between the 14 members of the Pressmen’s Union and the 60 members of the Guild, the number of striking workers rose to 74, bolstering the picket line nearly five-fold. This figure, of course, doesn’t include other workers who were honoring the picket line without officially voting to be in the strike, with the total union membership of Observer-Dispatch and Daily Press employees equaling over 200. All union members, regardless of official strike status, “vowed not to return to work until ‘satisfactory contracts’ have been reached with each union.”13 While Moecker and other personnel decided to act as scabs by violating union contracts, the other unions under the Utica Newspaper umbrella worked tirelessly to maintain solidarity. The Stereotypers Union Local 46, one of four unions respecting the picket line, also began to consider officially joining the strike. The Stereotypers leader suggested to the union that an official strike sanction be acquired by their international union.14 If Local 46 joined the strike, the total number of workers officially on the picket line would rise to 86. 

Breaking Down?

Negotiations continued to stagnate nearly three weeks into the strike.15 It was at this point that on top of the demand for extra personnel laid out by the Pressmen’s Union, the other unions that had recently joined in the strike introduced a demand for higher wages, something that all of the unions would set their sights on. Within two days of presenting this new demand, a meeting was finally set between the Utica newspaper management and the Stereotypers union. The union called for this meeting to include a federal mediator to help get the demands of the strikers, as well as the reasoning behind them, across more clearly for the management of the Observer-Dispatch and Daily Press.16 It was reported that the established meeting made “considerable progress” with a tentative agreement made regarding the two major issues presented by the various newspaper workers unions. The terms of this agreement would be brought to the union members for further analysis and discussion.17 It must be clarified though that this agreement did not mean the end of the struggle. It was made crystal clear by the leaders of the unions that “no one would return to work unless ‘satisfactory’ contracts have been reached with all.”

Though it seemed a final agreement could be reached soon, the situation became more complicated as other newspaper workers became involved. The Photo-engravers Union Local 61, for instance, soon joined the ranks of the other unions in support of the Pressmen’s Union.18 Then the American Newspaper Guild brought the issue of wages back into the negotiations. According to Moecker, during the Guild’s first meeting with management since the beginning of the strike, its negotiators explained exactly what they wanted in terms of wage increases. These included increases in weekly salary by $35 by November of the next year and the institution of an increase in extra pay for night work up to $25 a week.19 Other demands were introduced as well, including a shorter work week and turning the publishing office into a closed-shop operation.20

Moecker remained indignant in his refusal to meet the unions’ demands. In an expression of his continued refusal, Moecker stated that the demands “dimmed hope for an early settlement of the strike.” The Pressmen’s Union then introduced a greater concern for the issue of automation, presumably as a preemptive measure if the newspaper company found some way to go back on a potential agreement or introduce a measure that would address the unions’ concerns in a half-baked manner.21 Robert Callahan, an international representative of the Pressmen’s union, exclaimed to the Utica management that the position on automation, as well the demands for extra staff, would be “more severe,” effectively insisting that no lukewarm prospects introduced by management would be accepted.

Two weeks after the introduction of a more explicit call for wage improvements, a three-hour meeting was held between the Company and the International Typographers’ Union Local 62 regarding the issue of a new union contract. Following a now-established pattern, Moecker reported that no progress was made in this meeting.22 Another meeting was held the following day, but it does not seem as though any progress was made in this subsequent meeting.23

Just as the lack of progress in negotiations remained constant, so too did the solidarity between workers from different parts of the newspaper publishing process. The Typographers were not explicitly on strike, but they honored the established picket line. Regardless of whatever results (or lack thereof) would come from these meetings, the unions on strike and those on the proverbial sidelines never let any potential sense of dread or frustration destroy their solidarity. Through such solidarity, an ever-necessary component of any labor struggle, the Pressmen’s union and their comrades made it clear to Moecker and the company that they would not back down until their demands were met. Had Local 58 been forced to take on this endeavor alone, who’s to say if the company would have taken a more militant approach to crushing the union’s efforts.

Building Back Up: A Final Settlement

September 1967 featured several watershed moments for the newsprint workers’ struggle. Attempts had already been made to have federal mediators officially take the reins in negotiations, to little avail. On day sixty of the strike, mediators Harry Levenson of Albany and Ernest Frank of Syracuse made their way to Utica to officially oversee talks between company officials and representatives from those unions on the picket line and those respecting the picket line.24 That members of the State Labor Department did not influence the dialog between management and the striking workers until nearly a full two months after the strike began is interesting, to say the least, given the economic and cultural impact on Utica that the lack of information from the Observer-Dispatch and Daily Press was causing. Likewise, strikes in the Mohawk Valley have typically been fully settled in a relatively quick fashion with the introduction of state mediators and arbitration boards. For example, after a week of investigation by the Factory Investigation Committee in Little Falls, the 1912-1913 strikers reached a settlement after roughly three months on the front lines.25  More recently, workers at the Special Metals plant in neighboring New Hartford, New York were on strike for three weeks in 2019. Not long after the introduction of a federal mediator, the striking metal workers reached a new agreement on a four-year contract with their employers over working hours.26

Thanks likely in part to the physical presence of a mediator, the demands of the Utica strikers began to be properly addressed. One week after mediators arrived and ten weeks into the strike, one of the primary issues would be settled. In a meeting between management and the Pressmen’s Union that lasted seven hours, a settlement regarding the issue of available people to work the new printing presses had been reached.27 Moecker noted that other than those presented by the Guild, all of the non-economic issues brought forward by the unions had been addressed and settled. With this early sign of victory, it appeared that it would only be a matter of time until all of the demands were met. Subsequent talks with the American Newspaper Guild, however, would bring further delay in all of the unions reaching an agreement with management.28 Based on all available evidence, non-economic issues were resolved with the Guild in a timely fashion after their meeting, likely to the surprise of many, thus opening the door to discuss money-related problems presented by the unions. It was understood that the Printers Union would be the entity to handle economic discussions with Moecker and the company.29

At this point, signs of reaching a genuine conclusion to this struggle appeared to be more than a mirage. On October 11, the five unions on strike/observing the picket lines were presented with what Moecker called the “final offer” regarding the issue of wages, and over the following few days the unions would have individual meetings with the company representatives.30 Moecker and company, however, refused to reveal any details of their offer to the public, displaying the lack of transparency encompassing the Gannett Group’s Utica offices. This offer was not up to the standards of the five unions, as it was reported less than a week later that the supposed “final offer” had been rejected in a vote, 168-13.31 Perhaps that’s why the details weren’t revealed, because the company knew this offer would be undercutting the demands of the unions and would display just how little they valued the people they employed.

Unlike previous rejections, though, this one didn’t keep the idea of a settlement as a mirage. Thirteen weeks into the strike, and only a handful of days after rejecting the so-called “final offer” that the company proposed, a committee representing the four unions that were officially engaged in the strike made the recommendation to its members that they accept a wage proposal that would be written into a new, two-year contract. The Typographers union was in approval of such a recommendation, and as printed, the other officially-striking unions would express their approval or disapproval of this potential deal by the end of the following day.32 It was reported two days later that on October 20, the day after the report covering the union recommendation, the strike had come to an end after three months. With a settlement reached, the Daily Press and all editions of the Observer-Dispatch would return to publication and circulation the following Monday. The unions voted 138 to 45 to accept the new contract.33

Final Analysis

There are a few things of note regarding the demands for a shorter work week and closed-shop operation in this fight. To begin with the latter, the demand for a closed-shop setup reflects the development of the proletariat as outlined by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto. On the subject of the evolution of the working class as an organized being, it is stated that;

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the workers of a factory, then by the members of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labor, they smash machinery to pieces, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the middle ages.34

Proletarian development as set by the example of the Utica strikers’ fight for a closed shop bears some resemblance to the historical struggle of the Luddites in early 19th century England. Specifically, parallels can be drawn between the fight for the closed shop and the legal decrees that served as one of the primary catalysts for the formation of the Luddites.

In the early-18th century, the productive forces of manufacturing and similar fields saw rapid changes, with England in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. This mass technological development ultimately created what is now understood as the “capitalist system of factory production,” an advancement that many would consider threatening. As Marx states in Capital, “[t]he instrument of labor, when it takes the form of a machine, immediately becomes a competitor of the workman himself.”35 Suzanne Jeffrey explains in an article for the Socialist Review defending the Luddites that this new technological development, in line with the status of proletarian development in early-18th century England, introduced a new danger to workers’ livelihood. Jeffrey, outlining the dialectical development of technology and society, states that this new manufacturing apparatus not only threatened workers with lower wages and the potential of having to learn a new trade, but it also threatened them with the potential of completely removing the necessity of their labor. This newfound menace of automation served as the catalyst for the movement to act as they did, seeking to destroy the machinery that posed the danger they perceived. 

The other catalyst that led to the establishment of the Luddites was the legal apparatus of the time. After the French Revolution, there existed an ever-present fear that Jacobin ideas could germinate throughout much of Europe, creating a panic that can be compared to that of the US’ two Red Scares and the era of McCarthyism. England, and the United Kingdom as a whole, sought to curb this potential rise in radicalism. Introduced in 1799 and revised in 1800, the Combination Act made it illegal for workers to join any kind of union or engage in collective union-like fights for improved wages or a shorter work week.36 This is where, in terms of legality, newspaper workers in Utica draw parallels to the conditions that created the Luddite movement.

Twenty years before the newspaper strike, the post-WWII US government initiated one of the first real attacks on the labor movement of the Cold War. Seeking to eliminate some of the prospects of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, as well as dissipate the lingering power of the New Deal, Republicans and Southern Democrats passed the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which would cause a snowball effect in anti-labor legislation that continued through the latter 20th century. Two provisions of this act have a direct relation to the fight in Utica: outlawing the closed shop and introducing the “right to work.”37

Now, New York is an at-will state, which holds its own problems, but it’s not a “right to work” state, meaning that Utica newspaper workers were thankfully free from that tenet of the reactionary legislation.38 But turning the Utica Newspaper Company into a closed-shop operation was one of the major goals of the Guild, so how exactly would they go about implementing this with the Taft-Hartley Act looming over their heads? According to the National Labor Relations Board, although an explicitly closed shop is considered illegal, an employer did have the option of creating or upholding an agreement wherein employees would be required to join the relevant union after thirty days of employment. Based on this information, it’s likely that this is the deal that the Guild, the Pressmen’s Union, and others were looking for.

The demand for a shorter work week acts in conjunction with the demand to bring in more workers to maintain the planned new machines. If the workforce were to remain as it was, there were two chances for companies to increase their exploitation of the newspaper workers. The first is that, if the workforce remained as it was with no increase, the company would have the opportunity to introduce compulsory overtime (if it wasn’t already established in their workplace), leading to an even greater burden on the Pressmen to keep the printing presses in working order. Burnout, health deterioration, and potentially dangerous mistakes on the job could potentially ensue. Second, with stagnant employment numbers, workers in other sections could be coerced into cross-training, effectively forcing someone from, say, the Stereotypers, to have to split focus between their already established job and the new task of performing maintenance, likely with no additional compensation. Herman Moecker’s concept of efficiency was inherently tied to the fight for a shorter work week, as it was concerned only with the ability of the newspaper to make a profit, rather than with the quality of prints and the well-being of his employees. Moecker’s position is one that’s been present since the Industrial Revolution and the simultaneous advent of industrial capitalism, with both leading to the formation of the fight for a shortened work week. The Pressmen, as well as the other unions in the struggle, serve as a dialectical continuation of this fight, one that is happening to this day.39 French socialist Gabriel Deville explains it plainly in his abridged version of Marx’s Capital;

The sole concern of capital, as we have said, is the maximum of exertion it can wrest from labor-power in a day. It strives to attain its goal without vexing its soul about the duration of the life of labor-power. And therefore, it hastens the enfeeblement and the premature death of that power, by depriving it, by the forced prolongation of the working-day, of the conditions requisite for it to function normally, and thus retards or prevents the normal physical and moral development of the workers.40

A 1923 pamphlet from the IWW highlights more explicitly the dangers that come with working long hours, albeit before the standardization of the forty-hour week and eight-hour day. Citing a report from the United States Public Health Service on workplace accidents, the pamphlet states:

…they found that accidents per unit of product increased in a steady ratio right through the fifth hour to the last, except for the period just after the noon rest. Moreover, nearly all of the accidents took place the sixth hour of work and the tenth.

The pamphlet continues:

…the number of accidents in the United States in one year, 1920, was 75,983, or more than the population of some of the western states, and – the number of injuries, short of death, was 2,000,000.41

Unfortunately, the available information does not provide a specific frame of reference for how exactly the Pressmen and their comrades’ general work week was carried out (hours, pay, etc.). That being said, by the time of this strike the forty-hour work week had become the standard for the majority of workers as a result of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Thus, it can be inferred that employees of the Utica Newspaper Company were on the forty-hour schedule. However, this is only the generally accepted standard. In reality, there remains no actual limit regarding how many hours one has to work, as seen by the common phenomenon of people having fifty to sixty-hour workweeks. There stands the possibility that the Pressmen and others were over the forty-hour mark, even if only by five hours. Similarly, there’s been trouble finding data for 1967 workplace injuries to work in conjunction with the picture painted by the referenced IWW pamphlet.

Automation itself is not the problem. The problem lies in the fact that this phenomenon in any iteration, whether it be an advanced form of the printing press, other new machinery, or artificial intelligence, is not being utilized for the benefit of the working class or the masses in general. Rather, new developments in production are designed with the intent of bolstering the power of the ruling capitalists. Developments not designed with this intent are co-opted by said capitalists. This is a trend of immense historical significance and Marx discusses several instances of such phenomenon, as well as different responses to it in chapter 15 of Capital. To quote a relatively lengthy passage from this chapter, Marx states;

The instrument of labor, when it takes the form of a machine, immediately becomes a competitor of the workman himself. The self-expansion of capital by means of machinery is henceforward directly proportional to the number of the workpeople, whose means of livelihood have been destroyed by that machinery. The whole system of capitalist production is based on the fact that the workman sells his labor-power as a commodity. Division of labor specializes this labor-power, by reducing it to a skill in handling a particular tool. So soon as the handling of this tool becomes the work of a machine, then, with the use-value, the exchange-value too, of the workman’s labor-power vanishes; the workman becomes unsaleable, like paper money thrown out of currency by legal enactment. That portion of the working-class, thus by machinery rendered superfluous, i.e., no longer immediately necessary for the self-expansion of capital, either goes to the wall in the unequal contest of the old handicrafts and manufactures with machinery, or else floods all the more easily accessible branches of industry, swamps the labor-market, and sinks the price of labor-power below its value.42

What’s particularly fascinating about the plight of the newspaper workers is that one can argue that their fight, though encompassing the core of Marx’s explanation of the still-ongoing endeavor to bolster the reserve army of labor in the context of automation, exists as an inverse version of this problem. The Pressmen and their comrades never displayed any visible fear of losing their jobs due to the introduction of more printing presses. Rather, they were concerned with the need to bring in more people to make the task of maintaining these machines less challenging. This shows an evolution of the dilemma presented in Capital, one of the system’s many contradictions. The inverse of the reserve army of labor is interrelated to the speed-up dilemma, wherein workers are pushed to work faster, be more efficient, and ultimately take up more work without any sort of accommodation or pay raise. An existential dilemma, the purchase of more printing presses introduced a new contradiction to the fight in Utica. The threat of automation is presented more subtly in that Moecker shows he has the power to make the Pressmen’s jobs obsolete or redundant, even if unintentionally. It’s likewise demonstrated through his unwillingness to hire more personnel that he could utilize the speed-up as justification to fire the Pressmen and others for their lack of efficiency, adding to the crisis of commodifying human labor and the threat of such a commodity losing its worth in the capitalist market. Technological advancement introduces not only the risk of losing one job but also the additional risk of increasing the burden of another. If a particular section of the proletariat is faced with the prospect of losing employment with the advent of robot and AI technology, another section in another industry is faced with the prospect of taking on more work to ensure that this new technology, in whatever form it may be, is able to run efficiently, as with the case in Utica.

The struggle that took up much of Utica’s summer and fall 1967 provides a lesson in dealing with the misuse of automation for private profits rather than having the workers as the benefactors. It is a common lesson, but also one of great significance. That lesson being that the only true way to fight against the consolidation of control over new technology is to band together with your fellow workers. Unionize, fight for the collective betterment of your workplace and to enact workplace democracy. An extension of this lesson, the fight for a socialist system wherein workers as a whole would maintain control over the means of production in whatever form they may take, as well as the control of society itself, is likewise of the utmost importance, and can be done in tandem with the union fight.43

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support Cosmonaut on Patreon! At Cosmonaut Magazine we strive to create a culture of open debate and discussion. Please write to us at CosmonautMagazine@gmail.com if you have any criticism or commentary you would like to have published in our letters section.
Become a patron at Patreon!
  1. Elizabeth Cooper, “The O-D’s Story Is the Mohawk Valley’s Story,” Utica Observer-Dispatch, March 24, 2017, https://www.uticaod.com/story/news/2017/03/24/the-o-d-s-story/21891426007/.
  2. “This Week in Mohawk Valley History,” Utica Observer-Dispatch, July 15, 2017, https://www.uticaod.com/story/lifestyle/2017/07/15/this-week-in-mohawk-valley/20254218007/.; The spelling “Pressmen” is used in the name of one of the unions involved in the strike and in the majority of sources found for this project, and thus the spelling “Pressmen” will be used throughout this article.
  3. “Utica Paper Shut Down By Strike,” Ogdensburg Advance-News, NY. July 16, 1967. https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=oa19670716-01.1.17&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  4. “Manning Row Closes Utica Newspapers,” Editor and Publisher (New York, NY) July 22, 1967, https://archive.org/details/sim_editor-publisher_1967-07-22_100_29/page/10/mode/2up?q=utica+observer-dispatch.
  5. “Utica Paper Strikebound Third Day,” Press-Republican (Plattsburgh, NY), July 17, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=prre19670717-01.1.10&srpos=19&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  6. “Utica News Strike Talk Collapses,” Niagara Falls Gazette (NY), July 17, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19670717-01.1.23&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  7. “Utica Is Feeling the Effects of 12-Day Newspaper Shutdown,” Ogdensburg Journal, NY, July 27, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=oj19670727-01.1.7&srpos=1&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  8. Ibid.
  9. “Free Speech,” The New York Times, October 19, 1912; Strike Needless, Says Trade Assembly,” Utica Herald-Dispatch, (Utica, NY), October 19, 1912; “Neighborly Sympathy.” The Utica Observer (Utica, NY), December 23, 1912, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=tuo19121223-01.1.6&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  10. “Utica Papers Ask Strikers to Return,” New York Times, July 18, 1967; “OD Workers Urged to Return,” Press-Republican, July 18, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=prre19670718-01.1.2&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  11. “Mediator Sets Utica News Strike Meet,” Niagara Falls Gazette, July 20, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19670720-01.1.36&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  12. “Pressmen’s Strike in Utica Joined by Newspaper Guild,” New York Times, July 23, 1967.
  13. “Guild Joins Pressmen On Strike,” Niagara Falls Gazette, July 22, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19670722-01.1.5&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  14. “Stereo Men Seek Strike OK at Utica,” Niagara Falls Gazette, July 21, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19670721-01.1.5&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  15. “Mediator Finds Papers’ Contract Talks Stalled,” Press-Republican, August 4, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=prre19670804-01.1.16&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  16. “Meeting Set On Utica’s News Strike,” Niagara Falls Gazette, August 6, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19670806-01.1.8&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  17. “Utica Newspaper Negotiations Are Progressing,” The Kingston Daily Freeman, (NY) August 8, 1967, https://archive.org/details/kingston-daily-freeman-1967-08-08/page/n15/mode/2up.
  18. “Engravers Join Utica News Strike,” The Albany Times-Union (NY), August 13, 1967.
  19. “Press Strike Continues,” Niagara Falls Gazette (NY), August 15, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19670815-01.1.25&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  20. A closed shop operation is when being a member of a union or joining a union is a condition for employment.
  21. “News Strike Continues In Utica,” The Times Record (Troy, NY), August 16, 1967.
  22. “No Progress Seen In Utica Strike,” Wellsville Daily Reporter (NY), August 30, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=wdr19670830-01.1.4&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  23. “Utica Press Talks Held,” Niagara Falls Gazette (NY), August 29, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19670829-01.1.10&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  24. “Mediators Enter Utica News Strike,” The Saratogian (Saratoga Springs, NY), September 13, 1967.
  25. Robert E. Snyder, “Women, Wobblies, and Workers’ Rights: The 1912 Textile Strike in Little Falls, New York,” New York History 60, no. 1 (1979), 56, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23169970; “Textile Strike Ended,” Ithaca Daily Journal (Ithaca, NY), January 3, 1913, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=idj19130103-01.1.10&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  26. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, “New York Local 2310 at Special Metals End Strike, Net Contract Gains,” September 10th, 2019, www.goiam.org/news/new-york-local-2310-at-special-metals-end-strike-net-contract-gains/.
  27. “Accord Reached In 10 Week News Strike At Utica,” The Kingston Daily Freeman, September 20, 1967, https://archive.org/details/kingston-daily-freeman-1967-09-20/page/n41/mode/2up.
  28. “Utica Newspaper Strike Continues,” Adirondack Daily Enterprise (Saranac Lake, NY), September 26, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=ade19670926-01.1.7&srpos=2&e=——-en-20-ade-1–txt-txIN-utica+newspaper+strike———.
  29. “Begin Utica Talks,” The Evening Telegram (Ilion-Herkimer, NY), September 29, 1967; “To Start Talks In Utica With Printers,” The Kingston Daily Freeman (NY), September 29, 1967, https://archive.org/details/kingston-daily-freeman-1967-09-29/page/n9/mode/2up.
  30. “Press Unions Weigh Offer,” Niagara Falls Gazette (NY), October 11, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19671011-01.1.56&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  31. “Utica Press Unions Reject Wage Offer,” Niagara Falls Gazette (NY), October 16, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19671016-01.1.2&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  32. “Utica Strike Settlement Seen Near,” Niagara Falls Gazette, October 19, 1967, https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19671019-01.1.18&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  33. “Unions End Strike At 3 Utica Papers,” New York Times (NY), October 21, 1967; “Utica Newspaper Strike Ends,” Niagara Falls Gazette (NY), October 21, 1967. https://nyshistoricnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=nfg19671021-01.1.8&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.
  34. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Washington Square Press, 1977), 71.
  35. Karl Marx, Chapter 15, “Machinery and Modern Industry,” Section 5, “The Strife Between Workman and Machine,” in Capital: Volume 1, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm#S5.
  36. “The Combination Act of 1800,” https://www.marxists.org/history/england/combination-laws/combination-laws-1800.htm.
  37. National Labor Relations Board, “1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions,” www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/who-we-are/our-history/1947-taft-hartley-substantive-provisions; Mack Harden, “What Is Taft-Hartley And Why Is It Bad?,” Emergency Workplace Organizing, April 5th, 2021.
  38. Natalie Robbins, “What Are My Rights As A Worker In New York?,” Emergency Workplace Organizing, April 6th, 2022, workerorganizing.org/what-are-my-rights-as-a-worker-in-new-york-3499/; An “At-Will” state is one where an employer can terminate someone’s employment for, in essence, no particular reason, so long as the reason isn’t discriminatory (i.e. because of race, gender identity, etc.). However, employers often find loopholes to still do so without explicitly stating the reason.
  39. Even non-socialists have expressed support for a shortened work week. See Senator Bernie Sanders, a Social Democrat, advocating for a 32-hour work week in early 2024; Bernie Sanders, “It’s Time For A 4-Day Work Week,” CNN, April 3, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/03/opinions/32-hour-work-week-sanders/index.html.
  40. Gabriel Deville, Chapter X, “The Working Day,” in The People’s Marx: A Popular Epitome of Karl Marx’s Capital, 1883, https://www.marxists.org/archive/deville/1883/peoples-marx/ch10.htm.
  41. Industrial Workers of the World, “Cut Down The Hours Of Work!,” 1923, https://archive.iww.org/history/library/iww/cutdownthehours/.
  42. Marx, Chapter 15, Capital: Volume 1.
  43. Though the victory of the newspaper workers should be appreciated, our appreciation for this fight faces some limitations. Unfortunately, information regarding the specifics of their settlements has proven hard to come by. Google searches, deep dives into online newspaper archives, and a handful of searches through physical archives (microfilm, etc.) have provided no information on meeting notes, contract details such as wages and working hours, or any other such things. It is hoped that eventually such details will be found, and perhaps an updated version of this essay will be released. But for now, we must at least appreciate what we do know about the Pressmen Union’s fight.