WI No AFL-CIO merger

Prior to 1955, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) were two distinct, separate labor organizations that had different memberships (IIRC, the AFL was more craft oriented while the CIO was focused on industrial occupation) and different political aims.

The CIO grew substanially faster than the AFL during after just after the war, before agreeing to merge with the organization it had split with only twenty years prior in forming the AFL-CIO.

So, I ask, what are the possible effects of no merger between the two? Would the AFL wither at the expense of the CIO with the growing industrial sector? How would endorsements play out (OTL, the AFL-CIO endorsed Nixon over McGovern in 1972...Would a split union movement do the same?) with regard to national politics? Is a merger inevitable, or not?
 
Prior to 1955, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) were two distinct, separate labor organizations that had different memberships (IIRC, the AFL was more craft oriented while the CIO was focused on industrial occupation) and different political aims.

The CIO grew substanially faster than the AFL during after just after the war, before agreeing to merge with the organization it had split with only twenty years prior in forming the AFL-CIO.

So, I ask, what are the possible effects of no merger between the two? Would the AFL wither at the expense of the CIO with the growing industrial sector? How would endorsements play out (OTL, the AFL-CIO endorsed Nixon over McGovern in 1972...Would a split union movement do the same?) with regard to national politics? Is a merger inevitable, or not?

AFL wouldn't wither, it held its ground throughout the 30s, 40s, and early 50s. It was more of a division of labor - the CIO did quite well in the industrial centers, especially in the more concentrated industries like Autos, Steel, etc.; the AFL had better luck in industries that were smaller, and had more skilled workers.

The key question is what happens after Taft-Hartley. Taft-Hartley cut the heart out of the CIO, and forced them to expel millions of workers and most of their best organizers. If that can be moderated or butterflied away, different story.

Given that the CIO was more left-leaning than the AFL (especially with Walter Reuther as President), especially on questions of race and foreign policy, some interesting things might happen. One, the CIO is almost certain to go against the war by 1968, which will change the hippie/hardhat dynamic, and give a boost to anti-war candidacies within the Democratic Party that year. Two, the CIO, which was a major booster of the early civil rights movement, will react to the mass uprising of blacks in the South in the 1960s by trying to re-enact the failed Operation Dixie of 1948 - so imagine amidst marches, voter registration drives, and boycotts, you also have union organizing drives and sitdown strikes throughout the South. The Dixiecrats are going to lose their minds with Communist conspiracy theories.
 
Top